How should graphic contributions be treated?

[krtaylor]

In my mind there's a HUGE difference, both legal and moral, between a commercial environment where money is changing hands, and a non-commercial environment like this one where there's no money around.

[Zimmlock]

An other point is that its not allway clear who made what.
maby someone has to raise a website what contain every sprite in the original game and all edited and replaceable once. All with sprite number, location and editor name.
Now all this information is to much spread over the world. In this site you can find a small editor contact place to ask permission.

[Hyronymus]

Grf's that seem to have no creator are made by people that forget to use action 8 in their NFO. Also, George created a topic where we should write down the unique ID number of our grf-file. It are 4 hex bits so there's plenty of room to actually do it.

[ChrisCF]

The way I see it is thus:

* I am working with other people on creating some things, and alone on others.

* Here we have a forum that gets daily page view counts running into 5 or 6 figures.

* Amongst those page views are those initiated by people with skills that are willing to share them.

Why should I stand in the way of people with skills and ideas by releasing material with a licence that prevents them from using those skills and developing ideas (things which are basic, inalienable human rights)? Why should I make people accept an agreement not to help other people?

I have seen people that complain when someone posts a list of bugs in their software. Bugs which clearly would not be reported if they weren't there, and bugs for which fixes would be included with the reports were their source available.

For graphics contributions, anyone with grfcodec can extract the source to them, so there really isn't any point in issuing them under restrictive licences which effectively say I'm not allowed to run grfcodec on them (which I do with nearly every graphics set I get). Specific use cases are also a no-no, e.g. the "not for commercial use" phrase. Who seriously can make "commercial use" of anything that we post here? If I give you £10 on the condition that you don't use it to buy cigarettes, there's nothing I can do to stop you from buying cigarettes with the money once you have it. Once you have a bit of software, there's really nothing the author can do to stop you from using it in a particular way.

Another thing which gets me wound up is when people say that by having someone else use their work as a base for another project (especially when the other project is an open one) that the someone else is stealing their work. As far as I and the law are concerned, Theft is taking something without consent where the owner doesn't have it anymore. Taking a copy is not theft, since the owner still has the item in question. Similarly for people who claim they lose potential income, a thief can't take what you don't have. IANAL, but I have clarified this with a third-year law student friend of mine. To claim someone has stolen from you, you must have lost something which you already had.

To bring the matter full circle, my work is free software, the Patch is free software, so there's absolutely no reason why people writing other tools which use them should take away the rights of the users. As the saying goes, we are all created equal, and there should be no Orwellism (i.e. "some are more equal than others" [Animal Farm]).

While the author has the right to decide, I propose that a set of standards (with the bar set pretty low) be drawn up for the forum which every release must meet, to cover things such as licensing, packaging, etc. No grandfathering allowed.

[Hyronymus]

Why should I stand in the way of people with skills and ideas by releasing material with a licence that prevents them from using those skills and developing ideas (things which are basic, inalienable human rights)? Why should I make people accept an agreement not to help other people?

That's only true if you vote for strict copyright and sofar nobody did. To involve myself is this reasoning: I don't think I stand in the way of other people their skills if I want them to ask me for permission before they start editing my creation. I would stand in their way in the case my ruling went NO, which I can't imagine. Some of you might wonder 'then why the h*** does he want to be asked for permission, what's the fuzz?'. The fuzz is that I spent time and effort in making that certain thing (i.e. the European Roadset). I want credits for that but unfortunately the chance of other people crediting me out of their own is small.

I have seen people that complain when someone posts a list of bugs in their software. Bugs which clearly would not be reported if they weren't there, and bugs for which fixes would be included with the reports were their source available.

And in the mean time, people who do want feedback never get it.

For graphics contributions, anyone with grfcodec can extract the source to them, so there really isn't any point in issuing them under restrictive licences which effectively say I'm not allowed to run grfcodec on them (which I do with nearly every graphics set I get).

They can run grfcodec over my roadset as many times as pleases them. They may even edit it for personal use. If they want to post their edits for other players to use they better ask permission first. Just to make sure I get credited.

Another thing which gets me wound up is when people say that by having someone else use their work as a base for another project (especially when the other project is an open one) that the someone else is stealing their work.

That's why I want them to ask permission so I can force them to credit me (I think this is pretty clear by now )

As far as I and the law are concerned, Theft is taking something without consent where the owner doesn't have it anymore. Taking a copy is not theft, since the owner still has the item in question.

If the source is copyrighted then copying is not theft, as you said, but might still be illegal.

To bring the matter full circle, my work is free software, the Patch is free software, so there's absolutely no reason why people writing other tools which use them should take away the rights of the users.

Unfortunately this topic is about how graphic sets should be treated.

While the author has the right to decide, I propose that a set of standards (with the bar set pretty low) be drawn up for the forum which every release must meet, to cover things such as licensing, packaging, etc. No grandfathering allowed.

Now that is impossible: "While the author has the right to decide ... which every release must meet". The only thing you leave the author to decide about is his word choice (and perhaps not even that, depending on the standard).

[ChrisCF]

I want credits for that but unfortunately the chance of other people crediting me out of their own is small.

You underestimate people.

If the source is copyrighted then copying is not theft, as you said, but might still be illegal.

Maybe, but people should stop calling it theft (*cough*Oskar*cough*)

Unfortunately this topic is about how graphic sets should be treated.

Should there really be a difference in the way graphics and other tools are treated?

The only thing you leave the author to decide about is his word choice (and perhaps not even that, depending on the standard).

A standard dictating "must be in ZIP format with a file called README" allows the author to put what they like in the the readme file, and use whatever options they want in the ZIP file - fairly restrictive. A standard dictating "must use an OSI-approved licence, or a custom one which fits the OSD" is not as restrictive. There are almost 50 licences which are approved by the OSI, and a large number of others which fit the OSD but have not been submitted for approval (this process requires getting a solicitor to look over the licence, which can be off-putting).

For the most part, there really is no reason why there should be a distinction between author and user. If you wish to make a distinction between the user and the author rights-wise, then the author should deny themselves the right to use their work. (Socialist tendencies? Me?)

[Hyronymus]

I want credits for that but unfortunately the chance of other people crediting me out of their own is small.

You underestimate people.

From watching several 'exchange boards' I know that I don't. I can count the times people credited the originator on my hands (and I have two of them). But somewhere I lost track of the arguements about who's graphics (mods) it originally were.

If the source is copyrighted then copying is not theft, as you said, but might still be illegal.

Maybe, but people should stop calling it theft (*cough*Oskar*cough*)

We might as well forget that remark. It doesn't make your vision more convincing, does it?

Unfortunately this topic is about how graphic sets should be treated.

Should there really be a difference in the way graphics and other tools are treated?

Tools can do more damage then graphics (yet).

For the most part, there really is no reason why there should be a distinction between author and user.

As long as they both get credited .

[nilsi]

[quote]You underestimate people. [/quote]
I seldom have the same opinion as ChrisCF but this time I have.

What about a license that allows reuse of the graphics
- if and only if the name of the original author is credited
- if and only if the derived work has a completely other name
- if and only if the work is delivered in an archive file containg at least an
readme file containg a link to the original work
- if and only if the derived work is under the same license i.e. freely
distributable and changeable according to this license statement
I think about the future and it might be very hard to contact the author in just a few years,

Comments welcome, Nils

[Hyronymus]

You underestimate people.

I seldom have the same opinion as ChrisCF but this time I have.

Uhmm, bummer ?!

(Rest is quoted from Nilsi too but those quote windows obscure the message)

What about a license that allows reuse of the graphics
- if and only if the name of the original author is credited[/quote]
agree
- if and only if the derived work has a completely other name
not necessairily
- if and only if the work is delivered in an archive file containg at least an
readme file containg a link to the original work
agree
- if and only if the derived work is under the same license i.e. freely
distributable and changeable according to this license statement
I think the previous suggestions are even acceptbale for 'anti-open source' people but this one might not be

[nilsi]

I am glad you agree :-)

derived work is under the same license does NOT mean one single license
but it means if you grant permission if you are credited etc it would be not nice to get an restricted license
if only a few pixels are changed
but it is ofcourse possible to leave this statement out, because there always has to be a link to the original version where changes are allowed

I personaly will include such a statement in my graphics

PS: the completely other name statement came to my mind
thinking about some of Michaels statements about the dbset

[George]

Readme file? Isn't action 08 text is not enough?

[Hyronymus]

George, how many people do you think decode a grf, open the NFO and convert action 8 from hex to text? If I let my mind be guided by some newbies posts in this forum I bet not many. In other words: no, add a readme.txt. For your pleasure too!

[ChrisCF]

What about a license that allows reuse of the graphics
- if and only if the name of the original author is credited
- if and only if the derived work has a completely other name
- if and only if the work is delivered in an archive file containg at least an
readme file containg a link to the original work
- if and only if the derived work is under the same license i.e. freely
distributable and changeable according to this license statement
I think about the future and it might be very hard to contact the author in just a few years,

I believe that one is called the GPL

The idea that any further derived works should be under the same licence as the original isn't a recent one. IIRC AT&T allowed you to use some of their UNIX code post-V7 on the condition that you didn't disclose it and issued the resulting product under a similar licence to their own.

Seriously, some people here need to read http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php and state openly what their opposition is, before people start pointing the finger and putting people on the spot. In keeping with the Path Of Least Resistance theorem, it is the people who are opposed to an idea that need to come up with the more convincing arguments.

[krtaylor]

I'm sure we all agree that if you use someone else's work, you ought to credit them for it at the very least, in as clear a fashion as possible.

[Zimmlock]

I am not a grafix editor but this a verry interesting conversation and i wonder about just one thing:
Lest say i change something to a certain image, at that moment it not the same image any more, but its my creation, although it wasnt originaly.
What i want to say is how long does someone, or can someone claime credits?
Just a small example; i take the Rembrand painting Nachtwacht, i cut it up and glu it around some steel forms. Now i have created a new piece of art. think of Andy warholl. But it has notting to do with the original painting.

[ChrisCF]

That is a matter of what constitutes a different work. Even then, it's still polite even if not entirely necessary to credit the person for inspiration even if their work is no longer apparent in your sprites.

As for forcing people to ask permission which by your own admission is going to be granted every time, that's rather like writing a program with an "if true" statement.

[nilsi]

In the GPL there is no statement about naming of derived work and you have to make the sourcecode available on request, but I talk about graphics only and nobody has to release the nfo drafts with comments.
Furthermore the GPL says you have to make sure you verified the copyright situation and that was the problem with the cargoset.
GPL should be ONLY used if no doubts exist and that is not the case with old commercial games.

As for forcing people to ask permission which by your own admission is going to be granted every time, that's rather like writing a program with an "if true" statement.

That is why I made the proposal. To help Hyronymus.

[Hyronymus]

As for forcing people to ask permission which by your own admission is going to be granted every time, that's rather like writing a program with an "if true" statement.

I only said I can't imagine me denying permission but that's not at all the same as your conclusion. I might just as well decide not to permit someone to edit my graphics in a certain case. But suggest the "if true" statement would be a good replacer then it would read: if you credit me I give you permission. So it still comes down to being credited and my 'private' thought on how to make it happen.

[nilsi]

That is what I mean. :-)

[ChrisCF]

In the GPL there is no statement about naming of derived work

Names are beyond the scope of the licence.

and you have to make the sourcecode available on request, but I talk about graphics only and nobody has to release the nfo drafts with comments.

Ideally you should, since it will help the original author and newbies, since this information is discarded in the resulting grf. It also allows you to take the approach of "patch-only" distribution, where you specify that a release of a modified version by a third party must be distributed as the original PCX file and a separate PCX with the changes (the GPL does not specifically mention this, however the Open Source Definition (OSD) §4 does allow this).

Furthermore the GPL says you have to make sure you verified the copyright situation and that was the problem with the cargoset.

There was really no copyright issue with the cargoset - MB was the one that didn't clear his facts first His complaint regarding the oil and water trucks was incorrect, since the work was derived from a GPL-licensed version. You can change the licence on subsequent releases, but you cannot retro-license your work. WineX demonstrates this point rather nicely (look into why it is based on Wine code from 2002, and hasn't taken in their updates).

GPL should be ONLY used if no doubts exist and that is not the case with old commercial games.

Here, have a pooper-scopper and clean up because that's bullsh*t.
You are thinknig perhaps of patents rather than copyright.