This argument has come up before and it angers me every time, so I'm going to take the feel of the forums with this poll.
How do you personally think graphics posted to these forums should be treated?
a.) Freeware/open use. This means anything posted here is fair game for alteration, reuse, improvement, etc. It is POLITE and PROPER to credit someone whose work you use for something else, and someone who doesn't is rude, but not worth getting in a slanging match over - everyone can see the graphics for themselves. This would allow for the largest number of graphic contributions from everybody.
b.) Permission only. If you want to use someone's graphics for another purpose, you have to formally ask for and receive their permission and credit them everywhere its used. Otherwise your work will be deleted. The problem with this is that TTD sprites are really and it can be hard to determine if graphics were pirated or redrawn from scratch. Also it's lots easier to modify an existing sprite than to draw one completely from scratch, so this would greatly diminish the number of useful contributions.
c.) Strict copyright. If you want to do something, start from scratch. This would limit graphic contributions basically to the very best artists who are able to start from a blank slate.
So vote, and let's see what people think.
How should graphic contributions be treated?
Moderator: Graphics Moderators
Has anyone ever asked for the permission of Chris Sawyer and the others? If not, then no one has the right to claim his/her copyrights!
Let's see some points:
TTDPatch
TTDXC
TTDX Editor
the music has also bee changed
newgrf files
et cetera, et cetera, ecetet rá, citerát rá...
(Too bad you don't understand the joke here...)
If we can download them freely, we can easily use them for other purposes as well. All we have to do is say "my new stuff is based on xyz's stuff"...
Let's see some points:
TTDPatch TTDXC TTDX Editor the music has also bee changed newgrf fileset cetera, et cetera, ecetet rá, citerát rá...
(Too bad you don't understand the joke here...)If we can download them freely, we can easily use them for other purposes as well. All we have to do is say "my new stuff is based on xyz's stuff"...
Indivisibiliter ac inseparabiliter
I voted with permission. I want to know what happens to my creations, just in case somebody else has the same ideas about something I made as I have myself. I would rather realize those ideas myself then allowing somebody else to edit the graphics. Not because I'm stuck in my egocentric development phase. I just like to keep an eye on things I release (I suddenly wonder if and how this relates to what the professors at our university tell us about writing articles). I myself ask for permission from others before I use their releases.
About the question if anyone ever asked CS: no, I didn't. But in case he starts nagging I can always defend myself by saying I used his original as as a template. Besides that: I changed things but never asked money for it, I only changed it for enhanced gameplay. Here, enhanced gameplay is subject to who's interpreting it.
About the question if anyone ever asked CS: no, I didn't. But in case he starts nagging I can always defend myself by saying I used his original as as a template. Besides that: I changed things but never asked money for it, I only changed it for enhanced gameplay. Here, enhanced gameplay is subject to who's interpreting it.
You have the right to vote for whatever you want, and I'm glad to see you explaining your reasons.
It's natural for any artist to want to have some control or influence over what is done with their creation. Let me repeat, I feel that contributions here should be "free" to use, but that it is common courtesy to "ask" (inform, really) and of course to give credit where it is due. If someone told you that they were planning on making a certain change to your graphics, and you answered, "That's a good idea, let me just make that change myself," they'd be fools if they didn't take you up on your offer. It's only really for extensions that the original artist doesn't want to do or has no time for.
A big limitation on graphic extensions is the time they take. I look for efficiencies. For instance, I'm still thinking about the East Asia set, and I can see several of the Dutch trains that, repainted, would work for Japanese sleeping-car trains, and of course the ICE trains can be easily modified into Shinkansens (bullet trains). This would save like two weeks of work. I see no reason to re-invent the wheel. Of course, insofar as I had any control, it would be noted in the readme file where the graphics came from, or at least the original artists would be listed as contributors. And if they wished to do the modifications themselves they would have first dibs. But I see no reason to start from scratch "just because."
Your point about not making any money is really the key here. If you don't make any money, and the original artist didn't either, then there are no damages, hence no infringement.
Mattel Corp. has been through this many times. They make and sell Barbies. If you tried to make and sell a similar doll and call it Barbie, they could and would sue you and shut you down. BUT there are many examples of people who have used Barbies in uncomplimentary art (e.g. Trailer-Trash Barbie, Hooker Barbie, Transsexual Barbie) which Mattel tried desperately to stop, but failed because there was no money being made or stolen.
It's natural for any artist to want to have some control or influence over what is done with their creation. Let me repeat, I feel that contributions here should be "free" to use, but that it is common courtesy to "ask" (inform, really) and of course to give credit where it is due. If someone told you that they were planning on making a certain change to your graphics, and you answered, "That's a good idea, let me just make that change myself," they'd be fools if they didn't take you up on your offer. It's only really for extensions that the original artist doesn't want to do or has no time for.
A big limitation on graphic extensions is the time they take. I look for efficiencies. For instance, I'm still thinking about the East Asia set, and I can see several of the Dutch trains that, repainted, would work for Japanese sleeping-car trains, and of course the ICE trains can be easily modified into Shinkansens (bullet trains). This would save like two weeks of work. I see no reason to re-invent the wheel. Of course, insofar as I had any control, it would be noted in the readme file where the graphics came from, or at least the original artists would be listed as contributors. And if they wished to do the modifications themselves they would have first dibs. But I see no reason to start from scratch "just because."
Your point about not making any money is really the key here. If you don't make any money, and the original artist didn't either, then there are no damages, hence no infringement.
Mattel Corp. has been through this many times. They make and sell Barbies. If you tried to make and sell a similar doll and call it Barbie, they could and would sue you and shut you down. BUT there are many examples of people who have used Barbies in uncomplimentary art (e.g. Trailer-Trash Barbie, Hooker Barbie, Transsexual Barbie) which Mattel tried desperately to stop, but failed because there was no money being made or stolen.
TTDPatch is somehow problematical, but you simple forget one point on TTDPatch, did it give you a full patched exe in the zip? No, it even doesn't change your exe! It makes a local copy, and patches that everytime runtime except the a code loader that is injected.Endre wrote:Has anyone ever asked for the permission of Chris Sawyer and the others? If not, then no one has the right to claim his/her copyrights!
Let's see some points:
et cetera, et cetera, ecetet rá, citerát rá...
If we can download them freely, we can easily use them for other purposes as well. All we have to do is say "my new stuff is based on xyz's stuff"...
You can change your local exe file with some app, these app doesn't lose copyright if it can it.
GRF Files doesn't lose their copyright even they are somehow compatible to TTDs GRF File format.
Savegames you created your own, you can't be disallowed to hack in them around. Music? What music? The dx wrapper changes the output style of them, but the music cat file changed? where?
Even is the app you use for creating something is under GPL, the file you create with them aren't under it. Sample: gcc
So if you use grfcodec, even it's under GPL, the created file doesn't come under GPL
Last edited by eis_os on 03 Jan 2004 20:34, edited 1 time in total.
TTDPatch dev in retirement ... Search a grf, try Grf Crawler 0.9 - now with even faster details view and new features...
-
George
- Tycoon
- Posts: 4364
- Joined: 16 Apr 2003 16:09
- Skype: george-vb
- Location: Varna, Bulgaria
- Contact:
Graphics copyrights
Let me to advance my opinion.
First of all, it angers me to see the copyright discussions, repeating one after the other with a stable periodicity. And the most bad thing in it, that it can be gently solved when everybody are cooled down.
For example, when Oskar requested a station set for testing of advanced stations graphics, I build it from stations or different artists (MP3Pro, Marcel’s…) and posted him. When he posted the test version to the forum, Marcel was very angry for using his graphics without pointing him as an author. But when I posted the additional description of each one’s contribution on creating the graphics, the problem became solved.
For example, when I used some graphics from cargo set, I’ve posted a request to Michael Blunck for using his graphics and got the permission. Of cause, I’ve pointed the usage of his graphics on my page, but from my point of view it’s must be.
That I want to say is
1) Graphics artists (me too)! Be self-possession! If you see someone using your graphics without mentioning you as the original author, just connect to this person directly and tell him to put a link to your original work. Do not go into hysteric! You will not get anything better, but make everybody around and yourself exasperate.
2) New graphics artists! If you are going to draw something, but can’t do it from nothing, and want to modify or improve someone’s graphics, be polite, ask the author for the permission. This case, it is 99.9% probability that you will get it.
First of all, it angers me to see the copyright discussions, repeating one after the other with a stable periodicity. And the most bad thing in it, that it can be gently solved when everybody are cooled down.
For example, when Oskar requested a station set for testing of advanced stations graphics, I build it from stations or different artists (MP3Pro, Marcel’s…) and posted him. When he posted the test version to the forum, Marcel was very angry for using his graphics without pointing him as an author. But when I posted the additional description of each one’s contribution on creating the graphics, the problem became solved.
For example, when I used some graphics from cargo set, I’ve posted a request to Michael Blunck for using his graphics and got the permission. Of cause, I’ve pointed the usage of his graphics on my page, but from my point of view it’s must be.
That I want to say is
1) Graphics artists (me too)! Be self-possession! If you see someone using your graphics without mentioning you as the original author, just connect to this person directly and tell him to put a link to your original work. Do not go into hysteric! You will not get anything better, but make everybody around and yourself exasperate.
2) New graphics artists! If you are going to draw something, but can’t do it from nothing, and want to modify or improve someone’s graphics, be polite, ask the author for the permission. This case, it is 99.9% probability that you will get it.
mstations.grf, I have destroyed all my copies from it on my computers after I see there was a some problems with it.
I am very very sorry that it wasn't more clear that it was created by different authors...
My reaction was to say I have copyright problems with the file and can't provide it anymore.
I am very very sorry that it wasn't more clear that it was created by different authors...
My reaction was to say I have copyright problems with the file and can't provide it anymore.
-
George
- Tycoon
- Posts: 4364
- Joined: 16 Apr 2003 16:09
- Skype: george-vb
- Location: Varna, Bulgaria
- Contact:
You were too quickeis_os wrote:mstations.grf, I have destroyed all my copies from it on my computers after I see there was a some problems with it.
I am very very sorry that it wasn't more clear that it was created by different authors...
My reaction was to say I have copyright problems with the file and can't provide it anymore.
I have discussed it in PM with Marcel and he said it was Ok just when he cooled down Let me say again, I believe 100% in giving credit where credit is due. Why wouldn't you? It's cheap and easy, and makes people feel better.
And asking permission is easy too. If you don't get an answer or get a NO, then that's a different problem, but you should at least try. If you get a YES then there's no problem.
And asking permission is easy too. If you don't get an answer or get a NO, then that's a different problem, but you should at least try. If you get a YES then there's no problem.
I voted "permission only"
In the most cases I have no problem when someone uses my graphics for their work/projects or whatever else, as long they give me the credits. And just because I have spent much time in it. But I have to say that I want to asked before there is release. I will usually say "yes" when someone asks me for this, but in some cases, when I don´t like the whole idea, my graphics should not be included as a part of it. What the people are doing at home for their own, I don´t care about it. How could I?
Now about the cargo set and the copyright: I will simply asume that MB has the right to claim it, allthough I´m not sure about this. And of course the author of TTd has the right on his sprites. Has anyone ever noticed that MB has included in his set sprites from the original trg1.grf? That´s interesting, isn´t it?
In the most cases I have no problem when someone uses my graphics for their work/projects or whatever else, as long they give me the credits. And just because I have spent much time in it. But I have to say that I want to asked before there is release. I will usually say "yes" when someone asks me for this, but in some cases, when I don´t like the whole idea, my graphics should not be included as a part of it. What the people are doing at home for their own, I don´t care about it. How could I?
Now about the cargo set and the copyright: I will simply asume that MB has the right to claim it, allthough I´m not sure about this. And of course the author of TTd has the right on his sprites. Has anyone ever noticed that MB has included in his set sprites from the original trg1.grf? That´s interesting, isn´t it?
Just to add my grain of salt, no I mean my two pence, I think the choice of how to release graphics sets is up to each author, as long as they are not based on other graphics made by someone else.
Each author gets to choose how his graphics are distributed, and what other people can or can't do with it.
Everything else is just whining how it "should" be and how one "should" be allowed to do this or that.
As far as the modification of TTD itself is concerned, I'll repeat what Oskar has pointed out already: TTDPatch is not a modification of TTD, it merely contains instructions how to modify TTD, and these are carried out every time it is run. It is therefore not violating or infringing any kind of copyright; at most one might remotely argue that this is done by each user individually when running TTDPatch and therefore modifying his TTD in memory.
Each author gets to choose how his graphics are distributed, and what other people can or can't do with it.
Everything else is just whining how it "should" be and how one "should" be allowed to do this or that.
As far as the modification of TTD itself is concerned, I'll repeat what Oskar has pointed out already: TTDPatch is not a modification of TTD, it merely contains instructions how to modify TTD, and these are carried out every time it is run. It is therefore not violating or infringing any kind of copyright; at most one might remotely argue that this is done by each user individually when running TTDPatch and therefore modifying his TTD in memory.
A few points:
1. All TTDpatch tools (TTDpatch itsself, grfcodec, and alike) are legal since they do not include any Sawyer copyrighted material and were reverse engineered. Also they they alter copytrighted software to work with external data (graphics set for instance) which is also legal.
If it weren't so any debbugers or file editors would be illegal.
2. Modyfiyng other persnon's art is also legal. As long as there is a credit to the original author and clear statement that what you have done is merely a mod. Also if a modification is sold then the original author must get a percentage of the profit.
Otherwise collage or quoting would be illegal, as well as most of the fan-fiction and for example game levels.
1. All TTDpatch tools (TTDpatch itsself, grfcodec, and alike) are legal since they do not include any Sawyer copyrighted material and were reverse engineered. Also they they alter copytrighted software to work with external data (graphics set for instance) which is also legal.
If it weren't so any debbugers or file editors would be illegal.
2. Modyfiyng other persnon's art is also legal. As long as there is a credit to the original author and clear statement that what you have done is merely a mod. Also if a modification is sold then the original author must get a percentage of the profit.
Otherwise collage or quoting would be illegal, as well as most of the fan-fiction and for example game levels.
we (me and my girlfriend) voted free use (but with proper credits to the original author). MBs sets are on his own site so he is not in focus. Often grf makers disappear and can no longer be found.
If you (as an author) do not agree with that, you should not post your work here..
And we feel that small enhancements should be okay for all
If you (as an author) do not agree with that, you should not post your work here..
And we feel that small enhancements should be okay for all
What exactly is that?krtaylor wrote: BUT there are many examples of people who have used Barbies in uncomplimentary art (e.g. Trailer-Trash Barbie, Hooker Barbie, Transsexual Barbie) which Mattel tried desperately to stop, but failed because there was no money being made or stolen.
-
Louie Armstrong
- Tycoon
- Posts: 4053
- Joined: 03 Dec 2003 23:02
- Location: Buckingham, Buckinghamshire - England
I think that if someone posts a new graphic on a public domain people should be allowed to use it as they like to aid them in another developement or as a guide, as long as credit is given to the original author.
Official TT-Jewel Staite FanClub
Official TT-Ellen Page FanClub
Official TT-Hayley Williams FanClub
Official TT-generic yet cute emo woman FanClub
jonty-comp wrote:I accidentally wedged my frigate between some rocks. D:
-
Raichase
- Moderizzle
- Posts: 11509
- Joined: 15 Dec 2002 00:58
- Location: Sydney, Australia. Usually at work in the underground railway station...
- Contact:
As far as I care, it is up to the designer. Sometimes, the creater may want to share an aspect of their work to keep the theme running (eg the containers used in the cargo set, used in the long vehicles set). However, if the artist does not want it to be altered, then thats fine too.
I think that permission should be asked, and if it is denied, then nothing should be done. If it is extended, then work should really be shown to the original creater, so that they approve, and appropriate credit given to the original author as well as XYZ for altering them
I would say that there can not be a broad definition that covers all cases, it should be decided by each party on a case by case basis, and done progressivly to make sure no toes were stepped on during the process.
Raichase
P.S. Had I been here to see things before the inital blow up/discussion, then I would have been one of those users who told MB, if only because he has a right to know. I love Mp3pro's graphics, and Mp3pro as a person, he is a great person with a lot of talent, and I very much doubt he did anything on purpose! Everyone who works on the patch works very hard, be they changing existing graphcis, making new graphics through a grf, or patching TT themselves, and I don't want to see anyone upset by progress. Thats why I think these things should be decided on a case by case basis.
I think that permission should be asked, and if it is denied, then nothing should be done. If it is extended, then work should really be shown to the original creater, so that they approve, and appropriate credit given to the original author as well as XYZ for altering them
I would say that there can not be a broad definition that covers all cases, it should be decided by each party on a case by case basis, and done progressivly to make sure no toes were stepped on during the process.
Raichase
P.S. Had I been here to see things before the inital blow up/discussion, then I would have been one of those users who told MB, if only because he has a right to know. I love Mp3pro's graphics, and Mp3pro as a person, he is a great person with a lot of talent, and I very much doubt he did anything on purpose! Everyone who works on the patch works very hard, be they changing existing graphcis, making new graphics through a grf, or patching TT themselves, and I don't want to see anyone upset by progress. Thats why I think these things should be decided on a case by case basis.
Posted by Raichase. Visit my Flickr! Gallery, Blog (get a feed of everyone at once at Planet TT-Forums).
Raichase - Perfect timing, all the time: [13:37] * Now talking in #tycoon
Official TT-Dave Worley Fan Club
Official TT-Andel-in-a-pink-hat Fan Club
Raichase - Perfect timing, all the time: [13:37] * Now talking in #tycoon
Official TT-Dave Worley Fan Club
Official TT-Andel-in-a-pink-hat Fan Club
i am a professional artist and copyright is a pretty crazy issue IMO.
however i havea few views.
1) my source files are always private unless i give permission to use.
2) my posted images on the internet are all copyrighted (unless i don't include a copyright notice, which at my gallery i normally do add one)
3) in a real world situation if someone used my work as their own (largly unchanged) then i would be pissed, if they changed it or used my image as part of a work e.g. photo manipulation, a texture in the background of another image etc.... i would not mind. as long as the new editor had done reasonable work on it.
4) in a constructive situation like a game i would personally release all my work to the comunity as a Open Source contribution. i would not mind anyone using it and editing slightly. i would just like to see it and perhaps even use it if its better than my original
5)if it was a paid work i would be pissed, if it was free i wouldn't mind so much unless money ever changed hands
6) its always nice to get credit where it is due, i have always asked permission when using peoples source files or images and have attempted to ask permission for many images online if i am using it largly unedited in a comercial work (although many website admins don't read their e-mails so its often impossible in which case i use it anyway or not at all)
7) if i did and grafics for ttd they would be Open Source. i would include all the original working files as well, wether it be PSD, XCF, BMP.... whatever.
i vote that they are Free, but only because its non comercial and only fan oriented. in a comercial setting i would be the other end of the spectrum and say no way.
Alltaken
however i havea few views.
1) my source files are always private unless i give permission to use.
2) my posted images on the internet are all copyrighted (unless i don't include a copyright notice, which at my gallery i normally do add one)
3) in a real world situation if someone used my work as their own (largly unchanged) then i would be pissed, if they changed it or used my image as part of a work e.g. photo manipulation, a texture in the background of another image etc.... i would not mind. as long as the new editor had done reasonable work on it.
4) in a constructive situation like a game i would personally release all my work to the comunity as a Open Source contribution. i would not mind anyone using it and editing slightly. i would just like to see it and perhaps even use it if its better than my original
5)if it was a paid work i would be pissed, if it was free i wouldn't mind so much unless money ever changed hands
6) its always nice to get credit where it is due, i have always asked permission when using peoples source files or images and have attempted to ask permission for many images online if i am using it largly unedited in a comercial work (although many website admins don't read their e-mails so its often impossible in which case i use it anyway or not at all)
7) if i did and grafics for ttd they would be Open Source. i would include all the original working files as well, wether it be PSD, XCF, BMP.... whatever.
i vote that they are Free, but only because its non comercial and only fan oriented. in a comercial setting i would be the other end of the spectrum and say no way.
Alltaken
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot], Amazon [Bot], Bing [Bot], ucetcislo1 and 18 guests