License and videos

[DaedalusYoung]

Hi.
I'm thinking of making videos of Simutrans, but the license does not tell me anything about whether or not I have the permission to do so.
The Artistic License doesn't seem to say anything at all about derived works, and the Artistic License 2.0 only says that it doesn't fall under the license (paragraph 9, Items that are not considered part of a modified version, if I'm correct). I understand Simutrans uses license 1.0, but for this, it doesn't seem to make any difference, both say nothing about it. So if it's not covered in the license, then what is the copyright status of the paksets as used in the game? And does this differ per pakset? For example, is it allowed to make commercial videos using pak64, but not with pak128?


And what about the music and sound effects? I'm not planning on using the music, as that limits my editing too much, but I do think I'd like to keep the sound effects. Is that allowed?


So, in short: Am I allowed to make videos and monetize them, showing ads and making some revenue on YouTube of Simutrans, and/or what are the limitations? Is attribution required, like it is for Creative Commons licenses? Or is there something like a ShareAlike equivalent?


And additionally: If YouTube starts moaning about providing proof of permission, is there any page with a text, describing my permission I can link to? For example, the Minecraft Terms of use explicitly mentions it is allowed to run ads on YouTube videos of the game (hence there are 3 million Minecraft Let's Plays). Is there anything like that for Simutrans?


Thanks in advance.

[ӔO]

There is no specifically worded part about videos, but it is allowed.

I think you can quote the 'freeware' part. http://www.simutrans.com/about.htm

I didn't think youtube would have given so much trouble for something it has a lot of already.


Hopefully someone who works on the site can update the FAQs to include fair usage and videos.

[sdog]

There's money to made with let's play videos? Or is this more something of a hypothetical question, as one could get a few cents from youtube and it would be comercial use?


Sadly the artistic license is very unsatisfactory for the graphical content of the game.


The license of the pak-sets seem to be what is relevant for this question. A video can not infringe the intangible goods rights or copy rights of the algorithmic structure, only the visual presentation. It would be good to know what pak-sets you intend to use.


The question can get very tricky, since in german law there are situations possible where you would not have to ask at all. (the difference lies in the german intransferable personal rights of the creators and the american transferable copy-right)


Can section 7 of the artistic license 2 be interpreted in a way that would cover this use? It addresses the linking and use in aggregates.


A second approach could be to infer the intent of the creators when they put it under artistic license. The artistic license allows the distribution of the binaries for a distribution fee, this can exceed the costs of distribution. For profit distribution is allowed. (An example would be a download page for the binary also showing ads.) For profit distribution of a derivative work would be a much lesser use.


A third approach would be to get a grant for use by the creators. You can not get it from all though, since this is a collaborative project. However it is most likely sufficient not to have the permission of creators of works which are insignificant in your film. For example if you ask for the permisison of about 6 people (Fabio, Zeno, VS, mEGa, gauthier) you cover >80% of the world and >30% of the vehicles in pak128. You can consider the remaining 20% of the world as insignificant in your film as long as you dont focus on them, and can restrict yourself to the vehicles where you have permission.

[DaedalusYoung]

Hi, thanks for your replies.


If I'll do this, then I was thinking of using pak64, as it's more or less the default, and would be most recognizable for people who already know the game or would make the game familiar for people who are new to it.


Yes, there is money to be made with LPs, though I personally am only getting a few cents, there are people who make a living off of it.


YouTube changed the system a bit, they now don't always ask for proof of permission, but occasionally some issue with a videos does pop up and then they can ask for it.


I'm not sure about the term freeware. Software can be freeware and open source and still be copyrighted.


I see what you mean about section 7.


I could just go ahead and do it, since I assume there's no real danger of getting a copyright from past contributors or current developers. Also mainly since there's no big company behind Simutrans. I know for certain games, if uploaders aren't signed with a network such as Machinima, they get in trouble with games like Saints Row 3rd, and likely many other games, but they're made by a big company and I think Simutrans devs would appreciate getting the word out a bit more.

[Yona-TYT]

DaedalusYoung, exactly of that it is the video?

A news blog of simutrans a day, although this growth phase have been published many ads in English and of course Spanish. 1000 Greetings BLOG Simutrans-Face

[prissi]

The artistic licence forbids making mainey, it only allows for a redistribution fee covering costs. That was the major reason for choosing it.

However the game licence is probably not very relevant to this. If the derivated work is original enough (here things get tricky) even the use of copyrighted material is ok; for instance any tutorial on Word & Co will inevitely show the icons and so on, which are under strict copyright from Microsoft. Nevertheless you are allowed to make tutorials and even charging for them.

Open source lives from people contribution freely and thus has the consent that nobody should get rich from other people work. (Rich means really making money.) Thus I think a few youtube cents are certainly not make you into an OpenSource parasite

[Ters]

Open source lives from people contribution freely and thus has the consent that nobody should get rich from other people work. (Rich means really making money.) Thus I think a few youtube cents are certainly not make you into an OpenSource parasite

Lots of people/companies make money on open source software. It's free as in speech, not as in beer. In general then openness just means that everybody has the same opertunity to make money on it. Now they are actually making money on services or products based on the open source software, not just the open sourced software in itself, but without all the work put into it by others (and themselves), they'd have a longer way to the money.

[prissi]

Well, I do not mind a router operating with Linux (as you can tell when there is an address in the package where you can write to to get a CD with the source). There is hardware involved there too, so one could not go without the other.

I rather mean people selling Linux out of the box to dummies for instance. Or selling Simutrans.

[sdog]

There is nothing mentioned about the value of the distribution fee in the artistic license 2.0. Naïvely reading the license i have the impression that it is up to the distributor how much they would charge for distribution. While not clearly stated, for profit distribution seems not to be prohibited by it.

However the game licence is probably not very relevant to this. If the derivated work is original enough (here things get tricky) even the use of copyrighted material is ok;

This is specific to german law. The difference is in the form of the german "Urheberrecht" which is a personal right, and can not be transfered. If a new work has a sufficient threshold of originality (Schöpfungshoehe) it is a work in its own right with the creator of the new work holding the rights to its creation. This happens regardless of being a derivative work or not. This right of the creator is non-transferable.* Since it not up to the law to decide what work would be more relevant, the right of both creators has to be considered and the right of utilisation of the work has to stand back behind the more fundamental laws. There is no outright way to prevent the derivative work for the initial author after it has been created. But they might have a claim for a compensation. The compensation depends on what the utilization right holders of original or derivative work could actually earn. Thus for freeware it is by default not a case.

The system is of course inherently broken as it is arbitrary where the threshold of creation is, and as long as it is not reached the derivative work would be a disfigurement of the initial work. Which is considered on about the same moral level as libel.

As i understand, in american the copyright holders, who do not have to be the inital creators, can outright prohibit the creation of derivative work.

Thus: In germany your LP videos would be completely legal, as long as they would have a threshold of creation. This would be reached as soon as you comment it and actually play it. If you'd showcase only the graphics it would be doubtful, however it might be sufficient that your curating/collage would be enough.**

In american law this could be much more dangerous.


*This comes from a romantic Zeitgeist, basing on a natural law, idealistic dream. Unlike the english law which was protectionism and cronyism favouring their publishers and printers, closing their market to cheaper products from the colonies. The german law is author centred, the american publisher centred.

**That doesn't mean clever and mean lawyers didn't find a way to still make money from it, even if they'd loose a lawsuit.

[DaedalusYoung]

DaedalusYoung, exactly of that it is the video?

Well, it would be a series of just me playing the game, you'd be watching all the gameplay, probably edited to fit into a 20 minute per episode format. And then there'd be my voice over, explaining what I'd be doing, or especially in the beginning, explaining about the game.

So there's extra originality involved, where I make the decisions on what to show, how to play the game and what to explain to the viewers. Although right now I'm not making a lot of money off my videos, it is a goal to get some more out of it. Which is why I'm looking to expand my channel. And as I've played Simutrans in the past, it's a good game to play as there's not a set course to follow, it's quite sandboxy. It doesn't have a direct goal, I can play it for a long time, and I don't have to stop playing after a certain moment.

It's also original in that there's not a whole lot of Simutrans content on YouTube. Like I said, everybody plays Minecraft already, and a lot of YouTubers are just playing the same games. Like Portal (2) obviously got a lot of attention, and now I've seen some play Don't Starve.

So making money is a goal, but I don't think it will be a lot, at least not at first, and it's not ripping off people. Like, I'm not making Simutrans CDs and selling them for 50 euro on eBay or anything. In fact, I will not be distributing any game code at all, just the graphics and sounds will appear, and that always as it appears in the game. If people like it and want to play the game for themselves, they'll be sent straight over to this site where they can download the latest version for free.