Whenever it comes to a discussion about "copyright" all good reason should be abandoned.
No, "copyright" doesn´t depend on the amount of money you make with the copyrighted material, even if you don´t take money at all. It´s a common myth that copyright cannot be claimed if you don´t charge but it will be written on this forum again and again, undoubtedly.
Yes, (international) copyright law does allow for the copyright holder to allow whatever he wants because "per se" nothing is allowed for the public and there are only very little exceptions from this e.g. the U.K. "fair dealing", which allows for the purpose of criticism or review or decompilation of computer programs "to gain information vital to creating an independent program to interact with the decompiled program". But nothing else.
And yes, "With 256 colours and an area of 512 square pixels I bet there is A LOT of difference possible". I´ve shown this here [*] in a fruitless attempt to convince the talkers.
[*] http://www.ttdpatch.de/permutation.html
regards
Michael
Copyrights
Moderator: Graphics Moderators
-
michael blunck
- Tycoon
- Posts: 5954
- Joined: 27 Apr 2005 07:09
- Contact:
That may well be an opto-psychological problem. Anyway, in court usually a computer-aided analysis will be all-dominant.George wrote:But only few of them would be visually different and acceptable at the same time. Do you see the poll result? More than 50% of the people can not see the differenceHyronymus wrote:With 256 colours and an area of 512 square pixels I bet there is A LOT of difference possible
regards
Michael
I would like to but i cant because my english is not what i should be, i just hope we all can stay a happy family, coders,artists, developers and users, just with one purouse, to enjoy the game. And to learn of each his/her ability. This is the only way progression ll continue.
I think we (we, if i may be free to use) should not dispute the copyright untill the sharp edges among us but should act as group to avoid use of our creations outside the TTD community.
Just a small example:
michael has introduced people waiting at the platforms, i start to use michael's people in my construction sites. I don't see this as stealing, i did not ask permission to use the pixel groups representing people (1 person is 4 pixels high and 2 width containing 6 different colors)
The effect of this is that i found the original houses off TTD to small, i already used a hight of 6 pixels per floor on my larger buildings, but the floor hight of the houses is just 5 and 4 pixels, what is to low compaired to the people. Result i made new small houses with a floor hight of 6 pixels.
This matches better with george's trucks to. Its all progression.
I think we (we, if i may be free to use) should not dispute the copyright untill the sharp edges among us but should act as group to avoid use of our creations outside the TTD community.
Just a small example:
michael has introduced people waiting at the platforms, i start to use michael's people in my construction sites. I don't see this as stealing, i did not ask permission to use the pixel groups representing people (1 person is 4 pixels high and 2 width containing 6 different colors)
The effect of this is that i found the original houses off TTD to small, i already used a hight of 6 pixels per floor on my larger buildings, but the floor hight of the houses is just 5 and 4 pixels, what is to low compaired to the people. Result i made new small houses with a floor hight of 6 pixels.
This matches better with george's trucks to. Its all progression.
Hodie Mihi Cras Tibi
As it happens, then that wasn't the question that I understood you were asking. The poll's options do not reflect that question. I answered the poll thinking that you meant whether you could tell if it was yours or Michael's. I haven't studied either of your graphics enough to be able to tell, so I voted saying I didn't know. I could tell the difference between them.George wrote:More than 50% of the people can not see the difference
Nothing to see here
I only just discovered this thread, and I have quite a lot to say. So brace yourself for one of my celebrated Long Posts.
First, let me say that I am glad Michael Blunck has (finally) joined the Forums, and can directly make his arguments. I think that comes across much better, whether or not you agree with him.
Second, we all know how much he's contributed to TTD with his excellent art, always pushing the envelope of the Patch and leading the way for others.
Third, in case there's any confusion, I have always opposed taking someone else's graphics and passing them off as your own. Credit should always be given, and I'm as careful about that with my projects as I can possibly be.
OK, enough with the pleasantries, now on to the argument.
I'm very glad that MB has posted his mathematical arguments in a convenient spot. I recommend we all take a look at them, they are here:
http://www.ewetel.net/~michael.blunck/t ... ation.html
Now I'll show why they are wrong. You look at all his complex math, statistics, factorials, etc., and it looks very intimidating. Even if there was a mathematical error, it would be hard to find. And maybe there is one, but I don't think so. As far as I can tell from a quick glance, the stats appear about right. That's not the problem.
The problem is that he is answering the wrong question.
He is calculating the odds that two randomly selected images would be identical or mostly so, which are indeed very very very remote.
Have you ever played the children's game "Memory"? Maybe it's called something else in other countries. You have a bunch of cards with pictures on them. For each picture, there are exactly two cards with that same picture. So, in your stack of cards, you'll have two cards with a fish on them, two with a train, two with a house, and so on. You put them all face down on the table so you can't see the pictures. Then you draw any two. If they are the same picture, you keep the two (and so on, until they're all gone); if they are different pictures, you put them back where they were, and wait for your turn to come round again. The idea is that you'll remember which cards are where, so when you find another fish, you'll remember where the first fish was and draw it too, making a pair.
What Michael is doing, basically, is playing "Memory" with All the Pictures in the Whole Wide World. If you're doing that, what are the odds that on your very first draw, you'll get a match?
Well, very very low, obviously.
But that is not at all the situation. Let me post my quote, which he's cited several times:
Look at George's example of the copper pipe. He took one of MB's copper pipes, and then drew his own, from scratch, but in the same size. Obviously, in TTD you'd expect them to be much the same size, because the traincars are a set size. Similarly, the TTD pallette is very limited, so you'd expect them to be very similar in color. You are not going to make a purple copper pipe, or a blue one; it will be copper colored, and there are only a few shades of copper color in the TTD pallette. So right there, you are going to have many if not most of the pixels being exactly the same, even if both images were drawn completely from scratch, as George did.
So, to sum up: George has posted a copper pipe drawn by MB, and George has also posted another copper pipe drawn from scratch by himself. In other words, they are two artist's drawings, both from scratch, but of the same size, and of the same object. If you do the statistical similarity analysis, I am completely confident that you will find they are very very similar.
Of course they are - they are drawings of the SAME object, to the SAME scale!
Yet there is no plagiarism, as George has made it abundantly clear that he drew his version of the pipe completely from scratch.
Now, I am not defending plagiarism, nor am I saying that it never happens. It does, and it shouldn't. I am, however, saying that it is not possible to prove it using the statistical methods MB is trying to use, because of the very limited TTD pallette, the very small size of the sprites, and the fact that the scale is always going to be the same because it's inherent to TTD.
So. In MB's example of the house, WAS it plagiariazed? I don't know. Maybe it was, or maybe it wasn't. But it cannot be proven statistically that way, either legally or logically.
Now, some people have used MB's work without changing it at all, and admitted as such. Whether that's a legally actionable copyright violation, and whether it's moral, are two totally different questions that we've talked about before at great length, and gotten nowhere. But in those cases, not only are the graphics 100% identical to MB's in every respect, but the people involved admitted they were MB's. So there was no dispute as to the underlying facts of the case.
The question here is, when the other artist says they drew their work from scratch, can MB do a statistical comparison and prove that they were lying? And the answer is clearly, NO.
Do the statistical comparison with George's pipe example as posted above, which we already know is NOT plagiarized, and see what result you come up with. I bet you'll find it even closer than the houses are.
As far as copyright law is concerned, there are significant and major differences between different countries. So for every argument in one country, you can always find a counter-argument from a different country. Personally, I'd prefer the TTD world to use the copyright policy of China - you can copy as much as you like, but always credit where it came from. I mean, you can get copies of Britney Spears' CDs on the street for very cheap or nothing, but you never find a CD containing Britney's songs, but labeled as sung by Chung Wang.
First, let me say that I am glad Michael Blunck has (finally) joined the Forums, and can directly make his arguments. I think that comes across much better, whether or not you agree with him.
Second, we all know how much he's contributed to TTD with his excellent art, always pushing the envelope of the Patch and leading the way for others.
Third, in case there's any confusion, I have always opposed taking someone else's graphics and passing them off as your own. Credit should always be given, and I'm as careful about that with my projects as I can possibly be.
OK, enough with the pleasantries, now on to the argument.
I'm very glad that MB has posted his mathematical arguments in a convenient spot. I recommend we all take a look at them, they are here:
http://www.ewetel.net/~michael.blunck/t ... ation.html
Now I'll show why they are wrong. You look at all his complex math, statistics, factorials, etc., and it looks very intimidating. Even if there was a mathematical error, it would be hard to find. And maybe there is one, but I don't think so. As far as I can tell from a quick glance, the stats appear about right. That's not the problem.
The problem is that he is answering the wrong question.
He is calculating the odds that two randomly selected images would be identical or mostly so, which are indeed very very very remote.
Have you ever played the children's game "Memory"? Maybe it's called something else in other countries. You have a bunch of cards with pictures on them. For each picture, there are exactly two cards with that same picture. So, in your stack of cards, you'll have two cards with a fish on them, two with a train, two with a house, and so on. You put them all face down on the table so you can't see the pictures. Then you draw any two. If they are the same picture, you keep the two (and so on, until they're all gone); if they are different pictures, you put them back where they were, and wait for your turn to come round again. The idea is that you'll remember which cards are where, so when you find another fish, you'll remember where the first fish was and draw it too, making a pair.
What Michael is doing, basically, is playing "Memory" with All the Pictures in the Whole Wide World. If you're doing that, what are the odds that on your very first draw, you'll get a match?
Well, very very low, obviously.
But that is not at all the situation. Let me post my quote, which he's cited several times:
MB's math is wrong because if both sprites are of the same object, then obviously there will be unavoidable similarities.I've always maintained, that the TTD sprites are so very very small that the same object will look very much the same no matter who draws it, or how.
Look at George's example of the copper pipe. He took one of MB's copper pipes, and then drew his own, from scratch, but in the same size. Obviously, in TTD you'd expect them to be much the same size, because the traincars are a set size. Similarly, the TTD pallette is very limited, so you'd expect them to be very similar in color. You are not going to make a purple copper pipe, or a blue one; it will be copper colored, and there are only a few shades of copper color in the TTD pallette. So right there, you are going to have many if not most of the pixels being exactly the same, even if both images were drawn completely from scratch, as George did.
So, to sum up: George has posted a copper pipe drawn by MB, and George has also posted another copper pipe drawn from scratch by himself. In other words, they are two artist's drawings, both from scratch, but of the same size, and of the same object. If you do the statistical similarity analysis, I am completely confident that you will find they are very very similar.
Of course they are - they are drawings of the SAME object, to the SAME scale!
Yet there is no plagiarism, as George has made it abundantly clear that he drew his version of the pipe completely from scratch.
Now, I am not defending plagiarism, nor am I saying that it never happens. It does, and it shouldn't. I am, however, saying that it is not possible to prove it using the statistical methods MB is trying to use, because of the very limited TTD pallette, the very small size of the sprites, and the fact that the scale is always going to be the same because it's inherent to TTD.
So. In MB's example of the house, WAS it plagiariazed? I don't know. Maybe it was, or maybe it wasn't. But it cannot be proven statistically that way, either legally or logically.
Now, some people have used MB's work without changing it at all, and admitted as such. Whether that's a legally actionable copyright violation, and whether it's moral, are two totally different questions that we've talked about before at great length, and gotten nowhere. But in those cases, not only are the graphics 100% identical to MB's in every respect, but the people involved admitted they were MB's. So there was no dispute as to the underlying facts of the case.
The question here is, when the other artist says they drew their work from scratch, can MB do a statistical comparison and prove that they were lying? And the answer is clearly, NO.
Do the statistical comparison with George's pipe example as posted above, which we already know is NOT plagiarized, and see what result you come up with. I bet you'll find it even closer than the houses are.
As far as copyright law is concerned, there are significant and major differences between different countries. So for every argument in one country, you can always find a counter-argument from a different country. Personally, I'd prefer the TTD world to use the copyright policy of China - you can copy as much as you like, but always credit where it came from. I mean, you can get copies of Britney Spears' CDs on the street for very cheap or nothing, but you never find a CD containing Britney's songs, but labeled as sung by Chung Wang.
Development Projects Site:
http://www.as-st.com/ttd
Japan, American Transition, Planeset, and Project Generic Stations available there
http://www.as-st.com/ttd
Japan, American Transition, Planeset, and Project Generic Stations available there
-
Born Acorn
- Tycoon
- Posts: 7596
- Joined: 10 Dec 2002 20:36
- Skype: bornacorn
- Location: Wrexham, Wales
- Contact:
I find it saddening that people just can't seem to respect other peoples rights. Its someones right to protect something they have put their effort into, and it should not be questioned by people who can't be bothered to ask the original artist's permission and then think it would help everyone if they made a big tantrum about it and got it changed. It doesn't help, it just makes it worse.
Well, I think there's some disagrement on this point as well. I'll give my perspective.
It's been said that MB will give you permission to use his graphics, if only you will ask him. Perhaps he has given such permission to others, but that's not been my experience.
I asked about using some of his sprites in the Japanset, and for a while we were temporarily testing with some of them in the US set (not for public release, only testing.) He didn't want to grant permission for that use; he offered some concession though, I forget exactly what. Now, he was courteous and not insulting in any way, but it's not a matter of "just ask, you'll get permission." You'll notice that he's listed in the credits of the sets, or was for a long time anyway until everything had been 100% redrawn from scratch with no doubts.
As it turned out, we re-drew everything from scratch anyway, so no harm done.
It's been said that MB will give you permission to use his graphics, if only you will ask him. Perhaps he has given such permission to others, but that's not been my experience.
I asked about using some of his sprites in the Japanset, and for a while we were temporarily testing with some of them in the US set (not for public release, only testing.) He didn't want to grant permission for that use; he offered some concession though, I forget exactly what. Now, he was courteous and not insulting in any way, but it's not a matter of "just ask, you'll get permission." You'll notice that he's listed in the credits of the sets, or was for a long time anyway until everything had been 100% redrawn from scratch with no doubts.
As it turned out, we re-drew everything from scratch anyway, so no harm done.
Development Projects Site:
http://www.as-st.com/ttd
Japan, American Transition, Planeset, and Project Generic Stations available there
http://www.as-st.com/ttd
Japan, American Transition, Planeset, and Project Generic Stations available there
Hyro:
Within the EU copyright laws are usually very compatible - they mostly defer in lengths of protection for the copyrighted material.
Also - this is regulated by your national law - if it says that copyrighted material is protected by national law - then it is. If it says that material is protected by law of the origin country - its.
Usually in EU the national law is used - hence the "THIS PRODUCT IS PROTECTED BY US COPYRIGHT" you eften see is bull - it isn't.
Per-se - michael grants _copy_right to everyone who wishes to dl his work (as does anyone who does something in the internet). What is the discussion here is intellectual property laws - and those protect the work to the extent that you _have to_ credit the creator when you modify something.
This gets a bit more complex when money is taken into account.
Within the EU copyright laws are usually very compatible - they mostly defer in lengths of protection for the copyrighted material.
Also - this is regulated by your national law - if it says that copyrighted material is protected by national law - then it is. If it says that material is protected by law of the origin country - its.
Usually in EU the national law is used - hence the "THIS PRODUCT IS PROTECTED BY US COPYRIGHT" you eften see is bull - it isn't.
Per-se - michael grants _copy_right to everyone who wishes to dl his work (as does anyone who does something in the internet). What is the discussion here is intellectual property laws - and those protect the work to the extent that you _have to_ credit the creator when you modify something.
This gets a bit more complex when money is taken into account.
I should have mentioned, I think George's example is very useful, but the poll itself is flawed. The options, I think, should have been as follows:
1. Both graphics are the same, I cannot see any difference
2. The graphics are plagiarized, one of them is a modified version of the other
3. They are totally different, no plagiarism here.
1. Both graphics are the same, I cannot see any difference
2. The graphics are plagiarized, one of them is a modified version of the other
3. They are totally different, no plagiarism here.
Development Projects Site:
http://www.as-st.com/ttd
Japan, American Transition, Planeset, and Project Generic Stations available there
http://www.as-st.com/ttd
Japan, American Transition, Planeset, and Project Generic Stations available there
-
michael blunck
- Tycoon
- Posts: 5954
- Joined: 27 Apr 2005 07:09
- Contact:
Well Ken, all I can say is you grossly underestimate the powers of complexity and as a result you didn´t understand the given example at all.krtaylor wrote: ...
Well, I remember clearly. You were asking for some of the canadian locos from the old ArcticSet but I didn´t find them good enough to be included into the US Set. Instead, I gave you permission that all ArcticSet locos may be freely modified by Adam K. (hic: Uzurpator). AFAIK this has been done until those locos were replaced by own designs. Which I prefered for the benefit of the US set, BTW.It's been said that MB will give you permission to use his graphics, if only you will ask him. Perhaps he has given such permission to others, but that's not been my experience.
I asked about using some of his sprites in the Japanset, and for a while we were temporarily testing with some of them in the US set (not for public release, only testing.) He didn't want to grant permission for that use; he offered some concession though, I forget exactly what.
You´re right. But I never made a statement like that. It would be totally ridiculous, because if - say - someone wanted to make a "DB Set" he could ask me to grant usage of all the original DB set´s vehicles - and then I needed no copyright anymore.
Now, he was courteous and not insulting in any way, but it's not a matter of "just ask, you'll get permission."
So, this is always a complex situation. E.g., already a long time ago Hyronymus asked me for permission to include the ICE-3 from the DB set into the NS Set. But o/c this would be infeasible if the NS set would be released under the GPL. O/c I could put the ICE-3 under the GPL as well for the sake of the NS set, but some time later there would be the next request and in the end I needed no copyright anymore. [1]
O/c, now you could ask (again) why I do need a copyright at all? I need it due to my way of working which is totally different from your joint effort. Vice versa, your joint development couldn´t be handled by sort of copyright I need.
All in all, I don´t think that "copyright" is a bad thing a priori. Even your own US institutions say that the ultimate purpose of copyrights "is to encourage the production of creative works". Seeing it this way, copyright is a good thing: it´s structuring the process of "inventions", encourages other people to develop own things, and creates new ways of thinking. None of these developments could´ve been achieved by simple "copying" or "stealing".
[1] The need for an "interface" between vehicle sets becomes obvious again.
regards
Michael
He couldn't draw it from scratch!krtaylor wrote:Yet there is no plagiarism, as George has made it abundantly clear that he drew his version of the pipe completely from scratch.
He has seen it (MB:s original), he has taken the dimensions from it. Even if he tried not to draw the same thing, his 'inner picture' of the tube, in this small scale, would be very much influenced by the original.
To get a 'real' test, send the same photo of a train car to persons A and B, and see for yourself how much likeness there is.
-
George
- Tycoon
- Posts: 4364
- Joined: 16 Apr 2003 16:09
- Skype: george-vb
- Location: Varna, Bulgaria
- Contact:
michael blunck wrote:That may well be an opto-psychological problem. Anyway, in court usually a computer-aided analysis will be all-dominant.George wrote:But only few of them would be visually different and acceptable at the same time. Do you see the poll result? More than 50% of the people can not see the differenceHyronymus wrote:With 256 colours and an area of 512 square pixels I bet there is A LOT of difference possible
Michael, I didn't want to offend you in any way. But I really can't understand all these technical discussions about copyright violations. I want to show, that the question is only in moral code.Well, may be my last description makes some misunderstanding, but the poll question is correct. One row is the graphics, which people see once a week or so, the other one is the new one. The question was, would the people catch the difference (recognize what is the old and what is new)?AndrewA wrote:As it happens, then that wasn't the question that I understood you were asking. The poll's options do not reflect that question. I answered the poll thinking that you meant whether you could tell if it was yours or Michael's. I haven't studied either of your graphics enough to be able to tell, so I voted saying I didn't know. I could tell the difference between them.George wrote:More than 50% of the people can not see the difference
It is a moral question. I vote with two hands for respect to each other. But not everyone think soZimmlock wrote:Once again we ll end up with a endless copyright discussion, just don't forget we all stand together.
No. Then I would not get such an interesting result. The aim of the poll was not to understand the people position about copyrights, but to measure their filling of the graphics. And I think the result is wonderfulkrtaylor wrote:I should have mentioned, I think George's example is very useful, but the poll itself is flawed.
EBADASSUMPTIONGeorge wrote:Well, may be my last description makes some misunderstanding, but the poll question is correct. One row is the graphics, which people see once a week or so,
The last time I actually played TTD (as opposed to just testing grf files) was months ago, and that was with the USSet.
To get a good answer, ask a Smart Question. Similarly, if you want a bug fixed, write a Useful Bug Report. No TTDPatch crashlog? Then follow directions.
Projects: NFORenum (download) | PlaneSet (Website) | grfcodec (download) | grfdebug.log parser
Projects: NFORenum (download) | PlaneSet (Website) | grfcodec (download) | grfdebug.log parser
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Amazon [Bot] and 17 guests