• 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.

All Developers Please Read...

Hi,

Also not an expert on law, but...

I would think that it depends a bit on what kind of product you release as freeware. If it is an object library, than obviously you want people to use this library in their projects. And the persons using this library can just ask their users to download mine as well.

But if I make a detailed scenery of a certainly airport, I think it is different. Then I am sharing it for people to enjoy flying there. But if another developer like one of my textures from this airport and wants to use it in his own project, I would say he needs to ask my permission to do so. Because he wants to redistribute my work as part of his own.

In the past we had situations where people reused textures of our project in their scenery, without asking permission or giving any credit. And that is not OK in my mind, since they pretend that the scenery you see if only their hard work.

Just my :twocents:
 
Hi

Yes, I agree with Arno.

It's all about respect for your fellow flight simmers & designers. I always seek out and ask permission to use, Photos, text's (on my forum), other peoples models and texture and the inclusion of AI models and textures.

WHY

because it costs nothing and takes little time to be courteous to someone else by sending them an email/PM to use something that the person may have spent many hours creating.

It should also be no different if its payware or freeware, the respect should be there regardless. Many people put license agreements in with there products pay or free but I've always found a friendly email will 99% of the time prove fruitful.

Stevo ;)
 
"...without asking permission or giving any credit..."
That is the crux of the problem.
I do not mind giving credit for something somebody else developed, and would do so surely, but what about asking permission if you cannot get in touch with him/her/it or won't get a reply or even don't know who it is from?
Besides I would not want to feed all those developers, protecting their own so called products, without their mentioning the freeware developers that made the programs they used to make the product.
In my own humble opinion, if something is freeware, you can use it to develop more freeware using parts of the original freeware. if it is payware wholly developed using non freeware tools, only then would it be another story.
The decent thing to do is of course to at least thank those you used the originals of.
 
I will give a concrete example:
I built my farm place for FS2004 and used certain textures of Nova, some of Arno' s trees, and some more stuff I don't know from who.
Question: can I upload it just giving credit to Arno, Nova and Mr anonymous?
Nobody is interested in my farm but suppose it fits in well with another scenery someone is developing, I would of course 'like' (and nothing more than that) to be credited for making this farm but you would not have to have my permission first, even if it would be a super farm that cost me ages to finish.
 
Hi

If contact cant be gained then simply don't use whatever it is in any public release.

The word Freeware is many times misconstrued into other meanings, Freeware is simply the opposite to payware, meaning for one product you hand over your money the other you don't, but thats all the rights of both wares are still as valid as each other and the models and texture provided with them and should be respected as such.

My airfields are freeware but I use only 2 freeware tools in my process ADE to place the models and ModelConverterX to add attach points. Other programs I use are 3dsmax, Photoshop, AFX which aren't freeware. Gmax cant be put in the freeware list because its more or less useless without buying flightsim and using it's SDK's.

So your theory that if its built using freeware then it should be able to be used in other free products doesn't really work as none of my model or textures are created using freeware tools but are still free to download, plus the SDK which makes the final mdl/bgl's also aren't freeware they might be free to download but they aren't freeware tools. So really no model made can be truly freeware or payware as the final tools used are the same.

Stevo ;)
 
Last edited:
Hi,

To respond to your concrete example. Nova is/was a design program to build objects, so their textures are supposed to be reused. My trees have an explicit statement that you can do with them whatever you want (the texture is the default MS texture anyway). So those two are fine.

But the other things is more hard to say. If you used some API macros or other objects that people shared with the intend to be used, it should be OK. But if you "borrowed" some material from a finished scenery project then personally I think it is not OK to release it.
 
arno said:
Hi,

Also not an expert on law, but...

I would think that it depends a bit on what kind of product you release as freeware. If it is an object library, than obviously you want people to use this library in their projects. And the persons using this library can just ask their users to download mine as well.

But if I make a detailed scenery of a certainly airport, I think it is different. Then I am sharing it for people to enjoy flying there. But if another developer like one of my textures from this airport and wants to use it in his own project, I would say he needs to ask my permission to do so. Because he wants to redistribute my work as part of his own.

In the past we had situations where people reused textures of our project in their scenery, without asking permission or giving any credit. And that is not OK in my mind, since they pretend that the scenery you see if only their hard work.

Just my :twocents:
Click to expand...

Arno, I believe you are totally correct in the interpretation. That is how I read the law. One is MEANT to be used in projects, one is NOT. Talked with my brother, and he agreed with this as well. He said most judges in the US would agree with this also.

If you create an object for use in projects, or a library of objects, you released them KNOWING and with the intention of them being used by others in larger projects, PROBABLY for distribution.

On the other hand... As you stated, if you create a full airport or an insane modeled aircraft, that would come under a different set of rules. Because they are understood to be user used stand alone things. It's a goofy worded bunch of laws and very up to interpretation by a judge... My brother said they lost a case where the company distributed some scripts, that would have to be included in larger applications to be worth anything..and then tried to sue someone for using them in a program that earned that person a lot of money. The judge interpreted the script to be useless without a purpose (program to be inside of) and thus, was free use since it was distributed freely.

Again, so everyone knows...and I put it in all my do not read docs.... I distribute it...have a blast with it! Use it, include it in a package, just please say I made it.. That's all. And if you forget, then you have to live with it..My life will continue either way. :)

- Greg

PS..I really like this thread, it is great to see what others think about all this..cause I know it has been an issue for a long time in all aspects of life.. Since we are the developers, I am glad we can talk it over. Would really love to have a wiki section with the various laws from other countries included.. Again, no matter what most of them say, or don't say, they are all interpreted by a judge if ever pushed that far.
 
Just to make sure you don't think I am a total ass in my views...hehe I agree 100000% that anyone that uses something from a completed project, payware OR Freeware without express permission to do so should be shot!!!! I also think anyone that doesn't give credit should be shot. That's just rude!

For me, when I can't get hold of the authors/creators of an object or texture, I do put in the don't read me file that I did NOT create the objects in use. I name all those I can, and give nameless credit to those I can't. I also always put in that if someone sees something they made and are not happy I used it, they just need to drop me a line and I will fix it. The thought of not giving credit to others for their work is just totally unacceptable.

And yes, 99.999% of all creators of items will always give you permission. I have had a few even offer to make a mod for me to give it a slight customization so it's not so generic. I wish I could model..I need some modeling done very badly for my NKL project..and I just can't work in a 3d environment.. I have tried. I suck!!!! LOL

Thus, if anyone would be available to make a few very simple (I think) items for me, I promise you will get full credit!!!!!! :)

- Greg
 
I don't think there is any thin line here. Express consent is the line. If you cannot get a reply, you do not have express consent.

The originator has no duty to reply to any request. In effect, you are saying:

"I don't know if you'll read this, but if you don't reply within my timeframe, I'm going to use your work."

That's not right.

Try it with Google or Yahoo, and you might just get sued. You might not get sued by a small developer or content provider, but that's only because he would go broke suing people that steal his stuff.

And don't assume that giving credit is good enough. It's not. Not unless they give permission.

Not only do you risk lawsuit, you also risk your reputation in the community of developers.

Please, don't use other's work without express consent. It's not worth it. Make your own textures and BGLs. It's a little work, but can save a lot of animosity and cost in the long run.

Quoting Bill's origninal post:

"Using anyone's artwork without explicit permission is simply wrong."

He's right.

Dick
 
Hi Greg,

SpectroPro said:
PS..I really like this thread, it is great to see what others think about all this..cause I know it has been an issue for a long time in all aspects of life.. Since we are the developers, I am glad we can talk it over. Would really love to have a wiki section with the various laws from other countries included.. Again, no matter what most of them say, or don't say, they are all interpreted by a judge if ever pushed that far.
Click to expand...

It is indeed good to discuss these kind of topics here as well. Being a good developer is not only about knowing the right techniques, these topics also form a part of it.

About the Wiki page you suggest. That would be interesting, but I am not sure if we have enough knowledge around here to make it right. When you put that kind of information on a Wiki I think you need to be more sure that it is correct. And for that you probably need to know the law better than most of us do. But maybe we can make a good Wiki page as a summary from the discussions going on now.

One other things about these copyrights. Once I talked to a jurist about the scenery project I am working on for FS. And the first reaction of that person was that from legal point of view this is a very complicated topic. If you take the law literately (at least here in the Netherlands), I would need permission of every architect before I can make a model of the building he designed. That is because he has the copyright of the design. The same would apply to making a picture of the building. Luckily things are not enforced so strictly, as that would make many things in life in possible :).
 
Hi Dick,

rhumbaflappy said:
Quoting Bill's origninal post:

"Using anyone's artwork without explicit permission is simply wrong."

He's right.
Click to expand...

That's true for sure. I think what we discussed in the last posts only says that you can use objects and other items that have been distributed with the purpose of being reused. And even in that case you should probably add reuse them in an unaltered form (so as provided).

Any other attempt to reuse things without permission is wrong.
 
arno said:
One other things about these copyrights. Once I talked to a jurist about the scenery project I am working on for FS. And the first reaction of that person was that from legal point of view this is a very complicated topic. If you take the law literately (at least here in the Netherlands), I would need permission of every architect before I can make a model of the building he designed. That is because he has the copyright of the design. The same would apply to making a picture of the building. Luckily things are not enforced so strictly, as that would make many things in life in possible :).
Click to expand...

Arno, you are correct. And by the LETTER of the law in the USA, the same applies. If you distribute a model of a real life building, you better have permission to use it from the original architect. Sort of sucks if the building is 200 years old. :)

As far as google is concerned, people create 3d models of buildings all over the world for use in Google Earth. Pretty sure those people and GOOGLE are NOT getting permission to copy those buildings and use them in Google's software...of which, there is a PAY version of.

And the explicit written permission is a joke..since first of all, that is NOT included in 99% of anything that's made for FS...it appears in some places, but rarely from what I have seen. But if it is there, then yes, it must be honored. However, when it is NOT included with an object, the object is fair game. You are right, there is no grey area here. An object put into public domain for use in other peoples work is just that...free and public. Use as you want.

- Greg
 
arno said:
Hi Dick,



That's true for sure. I think what we discussed in the last posts only says that you can use objects and other items that have been distributed with the purpose of being reused. And even in that case you should probably add reuse them in an unaltered form (so as provided).

Any other attempt to reuse things without permission is wrong.
Click to expand...

With regards to the original post and the specific instances, the (several) modelers simply cut-and-pasted bits and pieces from our Citation X v1.0 release's textures...

In at least one instance, even the pilot's FACES were used!

One of the parties who did engage in a dialog on the issue attempted to justify their actions with the argument that
...you simply took a photo and cropped out pieces (such as a main gear wheel) and pasted it into the PSD file you used to generate the bitmap, so I don't understand why I cannot use the same bit of the photo you used.
Click to expand...

At first blush this might appear to be a valid argument. However, it is not. For one thing, during our research phase we either took our own photographs, or contracted with another party to supply detail photos. In no case do we ever use photos from any internet website in a release product. That would be a copyright infringement!

We may have to use something we've found on the net as a reference source during the modeling process, but not one single pixel of such photos ever wind up on our released textures. One of our graphics artists will "hand paint" a representation of such a photograph. That it may appear to be identical is precisely the point; that's what differentiates a true artist from a mere dilletante! :D

And that my friends is the crux of this specific case. The offenders copy-pasted our graphic artist's custom artwork, not a photograph. Our "livery artists" who develop the liveries included in our release packages only receive a free copy of our product for their efforts.

Our in-house graphics artist(s) are paid for their original artwork, paint-kit development, and other such work that's required of them. ;)
 
Last edited:
robystar said:
I will give a concrete example:
I built my farm place for FS2004 and used certain textures of Nova, some of Arno' s trees, and some more stuff I don't know from who.
Question: can I upload it just giving credit to Arno, Nova and Mr anonymous?
Nobody is interested in my farm but suppose it fits in well with another scenery someone is developing, I would of course 'like' (and nothing more than that) to be credited for making this farm but you would not have to have my permission first, even if it would be a super farm that cost me ages to finish.
Click to expand...

OK

Arno has already given permission with the file, and Nova textures are expressly for public usage, as their documentation has stated.

This is the problem. Mr anonymous.

You don't know his identity, and cannot get his permission. So don't use his stuff.

Giving credit is not enough. It's not right to use someone else's stuff just because it will save you time... that doesn't give you any right at all. In that case you can't even credit him, because you don't know who he is.

And uploading a project that doesn't have explicit permission for other's work included leaves that website vulnerable as well.

A single complaint to a webhost can result in a whole website being removed for having a single file that even hints of piracy or copyright infringement. Webhosts and servers are usually real quick to shut down any site that is a possible legal problem for them... whether it is acually legal or not. The hint of a problem can ruin someone else's website. Additionally, if Mr anonymous comes forward and complains to AVSIM or FSDeveloper, or whoever you published with, they will pull the file, publically apologise for YOUR actions, and will most probably ban you. Why risk that?

Most files already meant for redistribution, such as object libraries, are welcomed in other's projects, but only if permission is included with the file or package, can it be redistributed.

If it wasn't included, then they probably don't want it included in other distributed files.

You'd be surprised how many developers and toolmakers want to control the distribution. As Arno indicates, just give instructions with your distribution as to where the enduser can download it for themselves, for use in your project. Then there isn't a problem. They get it from the original developer's approved download site.

Bill's original post was referencing a developer that used his aircraft textures for use in their own distributed project. That is wrong in several ways. And giving credit to Bill is not enough. He worked hard on that texturing. Even if the developer tried to get a response from Bill that was ignored, he still doesn't have permission. Bill is in no way obligated to respond. He doesn't loose his rights to his labor by being silent, or anonymous.

If you don't have a path of permission, just make your own stuff... or don't publish it. Why undergo a future headache or an assault on your integrity? Or loose your rights to publish on a website? Just do the extra labor to create your own stuff, or don't distribute your work.

Dick
 
Again, it's how YOU view it. I am the other way: If you don't want it used, don't upload it. I know FOR A FACT, that is what a judge will say. Anonymous is not the problem. Any object placed on a public server for use in other peoples projects is by default (at least in the USA) free for all use in any form. It's a perceived contract. You uploaded it, you gave permission. period. There really is no grey area there.

We can argue this all day, I will never change my thinking and you obviously won't change yours. I respect your opinion. I just choose to have a different one. :)

- Greg
 
Greg.

Disregarding what you may know as legal facts, a moral and ethical line is drawn, and you are well over that line in your current thinking.

Truthfully, this is plagarism that you are defending. How can other developers now trust your work? And as I wrote, websites are not going to allow uploads to remain on their sites that have plagaristic complaints. They won't risk problems for your sake. You risk an awful lot to avoid a little work.

The common sense here would be to take the high course and maintain your personal integrity, and your relationship with the websites where you upload your work. And this is exactly what I encourage all developers to do.

FSDeveloper was started with the concept of developers helping one another... not with the concept of ripping each other off. It makes little sense to "get away" with intellectual theft legally, in a close-knit developer environment such as ours. It comes down to respect and helping one another. We shouldn't need to take ethical shortcuts whether for hobby or business.

I am positive you would not want to be named a thief in a public forum for our hobby... even if you cannot be convicted in a legal court. I don't understand why you would even go there, when it is a simple decision to not use others work without explicit permission. Why risk that, or encourage others to go that course? It's hurtful, and wrong.

Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. That applies to life as well as our little hobby. I'm not angry, but I am stunned that you are proposing to hurt yourself in this manner, when it's so easy not to hurt yourself.

Dick
 
Again, totally your opinions. Don't tell me I have to follow the law, but then tell me the law is wrong. You end up looking like a hypocrite and a moron. And I am sure you are not.

You are entitled to your ideas. I find them totally and utterly wrong. You don't have to ever download anything I upload for public use. I won't lose any sleep. And if I should happen to use anything of yours, and without your permission, know that it will be instantly removed and a note of apology made in the next release. That is the ethical thing to do, and that is how I have always conducted myself.

You should look up the definition of plagiarism. Don't bother, here it is: "use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work."

I have never condoned that. Never will. So, I accept the apology I know you will give to me for this accusation that is actually libel against me (def: A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.)

I have more common sense than you could ever imagine, and I wish you had more. You are looking at this issue in some backwater odd way. If you give me a vase...do you have the right to say I can't use that vase in any manor that I choose? Especially if you just give it to me. Better yet, and more to what we are discussing....if you give a painting you made to Goodwill, I go there and get the painting. Do I have the right to do whatever I want with that painting? First off, I personally, would never say it was mine. But I could use it on a website if I felt like it. I could have it copied and painted onto my car. It's no longer yours. You gave it up so that someone else could have it. I never claim it is mine. I always say the artists name, if I know it. But if I don't know it, I can still have it, use it, and sell it if I want.

You speak of common sense, please, show some. Your thinking means that all sites using pictures of anything must be removed. IE: Airliners . net must be taken down. Because I am sure NONE of the people taking pictures have permission from the airlines to use them or show the airlines artwork. And we already know this can be an issue because some airlines will NOT allow (and have sued) designers to use their paint schemes on FS models.

You have made your point. You are wrong. I have made mine. You say I am wrong. Good, we are both wrong. But, finally on the matter, for me....I follow the law. And as I said, don't tell me I must and then say to me "damned the law, do what I say is right."

By the way, I won't complain about the libel...I know you feel strongly about this topic...

Have a great night,

- Greg
 
Handbags at dawn...alert.

Irrespective of the law shouldn't there be unwritten rules about what we do as a community which is a very small one at that.

A company might decide it's staff has to dress a certain way or come in to work from time A to B, these aren't laws of any court just rules to follow. I don't see why the flightsim community should always be dragged back to 'in a court of law' the community isn't big enough or has enough money to warrant it, just try to respect each other and what we all do for each other which is have fun with a game.

In terms of a full airport scenery (not an object or library file)

if a designer doesn't want their models taken and used in another public release then try to respect that and don't use them.

if an end user wants to use a model or texture then show respect and ask permission, it costs nothing and will most likely make friends along the way.

if an end user wants to use a model from a full airport scenery and can't contact the author then refer to the license agreement in the scenery the model is from, in most cases it would say they cant be used. So respect the authors wishes and don't use it.

Are these small things really to much to ask from everyone for the hard work we all put in.

R.E.S.P.E.C.T a song one said. Everyone has opinion if we didn't it would be a boring world to live in. I don't agree with some opinions made in the above posts but I do respect them all because we are all individuals. But individuals can work together whether they all agree or not for the benefit of all rather than the one (just look at governments..mmm maybe a bad example, LOL). I just hope we can work together perhaps using some of the points I made above to bring us closer as a community and not fight amongst ourselves and try to stop 'use without permission'.

Almost everyone I can see who has posted here in the last day or so all agree on the same points which ever way the poster see it... so why is it so difficult to agree!!!!

Stevo ;)
 
Last edited:
You are right...and my handbag is big fat gucci... :)

Just to make it clear, the ONLY things included in my scenery are objects from scenery making libraries uploaded to websites to be used in other peoples scenery creations. I would never use anything from a commercial package and would never use something from another airport package. Everything I use comes from downloads of single scenery items or scenery libraries. Period.
Those items are designed and given to the FS design community to use and enjoy. I have never taken credit for work done by anyone else, and it is always made clear that I don't make ANY models of anything. We design scenery from pre-created items and do repaints of planes. We don't even release our planes with our repaints without permission from the planes makers.

Back to the original post, the people that took their work are wrong, and if they refuse to work with the people they took it from, they should be banned from FS web sites, etc...

As for the rest of my posts...those are my opinions based on the law in the USA. Nothing more, nothing less.

- Greg
 
I probably have as many freeware scenery object libraries for FSX out there as anyone, and I pretty well subscribe to the "If they put it out as an object library, you should be able to use it as long as proper credit is given." train of thought. For the record: I expect folks to use the scenery library objects I have created in their own sceneries. Most of my other stuff is location specific, but if someone really wanted to use the Floyd Bennett Field terminal elsewhere...I'd at least consider it. If they asked.

:)

Jim Dhaenens
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top