News:

The Forum Rules and Guidelines
Our forum has Rules and Guidelines. Please, be kind and read them ;).

Change "copyright" to "author"

Started by Leartin, October 12, 2017, 05:09:30 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Leartin

The "copyright" parameter in dat files is used to convey who made the graphic. That seems a bit off in open source projects - I don't want to get into whether they could be actually copyrighted under artistic license or creative commons, but it seems like a claim "it's mine, you can't have it!"
My proposal is to add a parameter "author" or "artist", with identical functionality - yep, totally not important, but perhaps it's simple enough that it still could be done.

Vladki

Hi I would propose to add one more such option: license= with some short name like artistic 2.0, gpl 3.0, cc-by-sa, or similar. It is imho better than freeform text in images.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk


Leartin

Quote from: Vladki on October 12, 2017, 06:43:39 AM
Hi I would propose to add one more such option: license= with some short name like artistic 2.0, gpl 3.0, cc-by-sa, or similar. It is imho better than freeform text in images.
Unless that would also show up in the game (where? Next to author?), you could just use a comment line starting with '#'. But I think the best method would currently be to place it in the background of the image by mixing transparency with background-blue. In the game, both is transparent, so it's only visible in the source graphic.

Ters

Well, just because it is open source doesn't mean that it isn't copyrighted. Without the copyright, the licenses are null and void.

Not that author isn't a better term to use anyway. (In Norwegian law, authorship automatically implies copyright, plus a few other things that can't be waivered.) However, there might be some issues with retroactively calling the field something else when dealing with old and possibly closed source pak files. Adding a third text parameter to all descriptor structures is a lot of work.

Leartin

Quote from: Ters on October 12, 2017, 08:56:45 AM
Well, just because it is open source doesn't mean that it isn't copyrighted. Without the copyright, the licenses are null and void. Not that author isn't a better term to use anyway. (In Norwegian law, authorship automatically implies copyright, plus a few other things that can't be waivered.)
Like German and Austrian equivalent Urheberrecht, which can't be waivered either. Yet an American copyright can belong to someone other than the author. Laws are complicated... let's not discuss them here, shall we?


Quote from: Ters on October 12, 2017, 08:56:45 AMHowever, there might be some issues with retroactively calling the field something else when dealing with old and possibly closed source pak files. Adding a third text parameter to all descriptor structures is a lot of work.
I'd think adding "author" as a readable property to makeobj, which internally becomes "copyright" again, would be a relatively easy solution and cover the part that's visible for the casual pak-maker. Personally I don't mind it as much in internal code.

Ters

There are few who cares what is shown in dat-files. Most people only see what is shown in-game.

(It is a bit unclear to me whether European copyrights can belong to someone other than the author or not. It seems they always have it, but is it necessarily exclusively? And what is transferred to heirs after death?)

Leartin

Quote from: Ters on October 12, 2017, 03:40:42 PMThere are few who cares what is shown in dat-files. Most people only see what is shown in-game.
But in the game, it is whatever the translation says it is, usually "painted by". So there is no issue with that :)

Quote from: Ters on October 12, 2017, 03:40:42 PM(It is a bit unclear to me whether European copyrights can belong to someone other than the author or not. It seems they always have it, but is it necessarily exclusively? And what is transferred to heirs after death?)
(it depends what you understand as "European Copyright", since to my knowledge, that does not exist. The creators rights, which come closest to it, can only ever belong to one person, and can only be transferred to a heir after death, with the last will. Even then, the heir is supposed to act in the creators interests, not in their own. However, all the using rights etc. can be transferred, the things that are intransferrable are like a veto right against use against the authors beliefs and things like that...)

Ters

The right to produce copies of the work, which might be called the copyright, is one of the author's rights. As far as I can tell from a quick read-through, the only rights I can not waiver according to Norwegian law, is the right be named as the author in a suitable way and the right to veto abuse and misuse. This seems to mean that if I made something for Simutrans, I can, at least within Norway, veto use of it in maps where I feel it doesn't belong. And I might also veto against some translations of the copyright text. Even if it is open sourced.

Leartin

Yes, but "the right to produce copies of the work" is one of the first rights you 'give up'/grant others - especially in context with creative commons or artistic license. One could say they EXIST to allow people to produce copies (and more).

I don't think your veto against abuse works for everything you don't like. If you created something for a transport simulation game and somebody else is using it in a transport simulation game map, you can hardly say it's abuse. If the same thing ends up on promotion material for a right-wing organization with extreme views... different story. Just imagine you sell a book you wrote to a publisher, and after the contract is signed, you add "by the way, I'm going to veto against any kind of print except for toilet paper". Not gonna happen. But if it's a book about veganism and animal protection, you could probably veto against it being published in real leather binding. If the authors veto really had that much power, would Simutrans still exist?
Anyway... it's a huge complicated mess, and we only opened that can of worms because that darn word "copyright" is used instead of a simple "artist" or "author".

Ters

Quote from: Leartin on October 12, 2017, 07:08:05 PM
[If] somebody else is using it in a transport simulation game map, you can hardly say it's abuse. If the same thing ends up on promotion material for a right-wing organization with extreme views... different story.

It can be the same story: A right-wing propaganda Simutrans map. What about a vegan headquarters pak stuck into a pak set with nothing but slaugher-related industry chains?

Isaac Eiland-Hall

So...... what you're saying is I should probably abandon my NuclearMilitaryNaziKKKPak63 project?

Leartin

I'm not sure those European laws would even apply to an American, so go ahead, Isaac. Given the current development of the world, the most controversial thing might be the pak size you chose :P

Ters

They do apply if they set foot on European soil. They do also apply if they market in Europe, but there is often little Europe can do if they do not have a physical presence. (Norway has had an ongoing feud with the UK over Norwegian-languaged television channels based there violating Norwegian law.) Apart from the pak size, Isaac is probably only going to have issues with Germany, though.

prissi

pak size number need to be divided by 4 (maybe 2 works also), but odd number will not work. So no controversy here looming ...

Isaac Eiland-Hall

Quote from: prissi on October 14, 2017, 02:52:44 PM
pak size number need to be divided by 4 (maybe 2 works also), but odd number will not work. So no controversy here looming ...

Not to derail¹ much further, but I did want to point out that 63÷2 = 31.5. Or 63÷4 = 15.75. So obviously it should work. ;-)



¹ I mean, much more than I already have... also, pun intended.

Leartin

I guess pixel splitting is where the 'nuclear' part of the pak comes from?



Anyway, back to the very original proposal: Additional parameter, much like "length" and "lenght" do the same thing, to remove a 'trigger word'? This thread should be proof of it's potential to cause chaos, right?