Copyright/ownership of MSFS-addon "programming code"

[rcbarend 37]

Hi all,Triggered by a question (freely translated) in another thread: "is the gauge you are modifying a compiled gauge or an .xml gauge" , I'm very interested in your opinions:In term of ownership/copyright, do you think there is a difference between:1. De-compiling a C/C++ coded gauge, modify it, and compile it again; or modify a C/C++ coded gauge with a Hex editor.and2. Change the text in an XML-coded gauge.Maybe even more basic: what is "copyrighted code" ?A few other examples:- Can somebody claim copyright on contents/lines in an Panel.cfg file ? or Aircraft.cfg file ?- And if not on an Aircraft.cfg: how about an .air file ? Or .mdl file ?I hope you see what I'm getting at.Some people this MSFS world think that (in term of copyright/ownership) there is a difference between "interpreted code" (like .xml code) and "compiled" code; others do not.I'm very interested in your opinion, and, especially, your arguments pro/con.Or why, if any, there is a difference between the "MSFS" addon world and general software industry. Regards, Rob

[Chock 17,769]

Since an SDK is provided for the purposes of creating additional stuff for FS, one is bound by the constraints of what that allows if one uses its methodology (which not all developers do, because you have to step outside it sometimes to do fancy stuff in FS, and whether you actually did is kind of hard to prove/disprove). One would also be bound somewhat by the constraints of what the FS EULA itself covers. But, since if you do create stuff beyond what comes with the box (or download), then yes, you can at least claim ownership of its contents because of the notion of intellectual property rights, i.e. if you create something, it is born of your creativity, so you therefore own the intellectual rights to that creation. But this is to some extent similar to other claims that people can make, i.e. I can claim to be the king of the universe if I like, but it doesn't mean I'd win a court case over that claim.So, the notion of intellectual property is by no means a universally accepted premise, nor is there one set of rules that is generally agreed upon that would make it an ironclad claim to make. The upshot of this, is that lawyers are currently able to make a lot of money by arguing the pros and cons of intellectual property claims (there's a surprise eh?). There are some intellectual property statutes kicking about in various nations, and the EU did try to consolidate it, but a lot of European countries have dragged their heels on complying, and that's fairly indicative of the state of affairs legally in a lot of countries in relation to the subject and the use of laws to argue it.Al

[mgh 89]

In principle, regardless of whether or not the auithor has steps outside the SDK (or indeed asny other considerations) any text or compiled files are copyright, provided they are original works. That's almost a given worldwide that ortiginal works of any type are automatically protected by copyright - certainly among those countries who've signed the Berne Convention. One differece is that the USA has a fair use clause "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research". I'd suggest this isn't quite as wide as some people on these forums have suggested - does "Research" cover "because it's convenient to me personally"?In practice, it's generally impossible to enforce copyright against individuals, specially in the context of flight simulation. Although a commercial developer would at least consider action against anyone exploiting its work. Also, despite the legalities, it seems to me that:First, Microsoft's published XML and .cfg files can be regarded as examples in support of the SDK, and which are available for people to use and adapt.Second that's led to the general acceptance that flight sim text files can be freely copied, published, and adapted , if only because it can't be stopped. Having said that, reputable flight sim sites will take down material put in their libraries without permission in breach of copyright. I suggest, isn't accepted with compiled files which generally need to be de-compiled before thay can be used. It's accepted ibn computing in general that complied files should'nt be hacked and that really is a breach of the author's rights. A further point is that if the author of a complied file wished to allow others to adapt it he could have published the source code. In the absence of source code, I'd argue that the author didn't intend to allow that. In FSX, it's possible to convert XML gauges, Missions and some Autogen files to binary files (.SPB) to protect them. If they are not protected then I think it's reasonable to use and adapt them.I'm aware my agument isn't logically consistent but it seems reasonable and practicable bearing in mind that commercial developers need to be able to protect there products if they are to stay in business. That, after all, is the objective of copyright.

[tgibson 11]

The question I have is how about if you are making the changes for yourself, and do not intend on distributing the changed files? And then that opens up another question - in other hobbies I've seen guides to allow you to change a payware file yourself (with warnings not to distribute any changed files). Is this a breach of copyright? After all, you are not affecting the author's sales of the product - they still need to buy it (and in some cases, there may be more people buying it to make these changes).

[WarpD 824]

Hi all,Triggered by a question (freely translated) in another thread: "is the gauge you are modifying a compiled gauge or an .xml gauge" , I'm very interested in your opinions:In term of ownership/copyright, do you think there is a difference between:1. De-compiling a C/C++ coded gauge, modify it, and compile it again; or modify a C/C++ coded gauge with a Hex editor.and2. Change the text in an XML-coded gauge.

They are both copyrighted and owned by the creator.

Maybe even more basic: what is "copyrighted code" ?A few other examples:- Can somebody claim copyright on contents/lines in an Panel.cfg file ? or Aircraft.cfg file ?- And if not on an Aircraft.cfg: how about an .air file ? Or .mdl file ?

No, No, No, Yes.

I hope you see what I'm getting at.Some people this MSFS world think that (in term of copyright/ownership) there is a difference between "interpreted code" (like .xml code) and "compiled" code; others do not.

There is not.

I'm very interested in your opinion, and, especially, your arguments pro/con.Or why, if any, there is a difference between the "MSFS" addon world and general software industry. Regards, Rob

The question I have is how about if you are making the changes for yourself, and do not intend on distributing the changed files? And then that opens up another question - in other hobbies I've seen guides to allow you to change a payware file yourself (with warnings not to distribute any changed files). Is this a breach of copyright? After all, you are not affecting the author's sales of the product - they still need to buy it (and in some cases, there may be more people buying it to make these changes).

As long as said changes don't violate the copy protection (if any)... sure, you can indeed do that. However, if doing so breaks the copy protection... that's a no-no.

[mgh 89]

In Berne convention countries copyright applies automatically to anything that is covered by the country's copyright law as long as it involves a dgree of originality and creativity. Copyright protects the expression an idea but not the ideas or facts themselves.If I create any .cfg or .air then it is my copyright - they involve a dgree of originality and creativity. That doesn't prevent anyone else creating similar files that do exactly the same thing, which would be equally copyright to them.

[WarpD 824]

In Berne convention countries copyright applies automatically to anything that is covered by the country's copyright law as long as it involves a dgree of originality and creativity. Copyright protects the expression an idea but not the ideas or facts themselves.If I create any .cfg or .air then it is my copyright - they involve a dgree of originality and creativity. That doesn't prevent anyone else creating similar files that do exactly the same thing, which would be equally copyright to them.

And that would be an incorrect assumption on your part.The .air file is nothing more than a physical data file. No more, no less. The data it contains is based mostly off of derived works (default FS aircraft values) combined with information gleened primarily from the internet. The physical data, if any is derived from actual aircraft documentation whose contents belong to the aircraft manufacturer. Unless said .air file depicts a completely ficticious aircraft... it's not copyrightable by any ADDON developer.The .cfg file contains absolutely nothing in it that can be attributed as copyrightable. It is once again a derived work of data based off a data format designed and created by Microsoft. Unless said .cfg file depicts a completely ficticious aircraft... it's not copyrightable by any ADDON developer.These two files are nothing more than a data file... no more, no less. The contents of a data file is only copyrightable if it contains unique data that could not be obtained by any other source or if the individual created their own unique data file format. Microsoft created the format for both .air files as well as .cfg files... in that regard, they own the copyright to the design of the files. The contents of the files, unless it's a completely ficticious aircraft, contains data that is derived from someone else's trademarked and/or copyrighted work (aircraft).An ADDON developer has zero legal claims regarding the aircraft.cfg file or the .air file itself. Painful concept... but true.

[mgh 89]

If what you say is true then any book titled "Aircraft of.." which tabulates the dimensions, weights, performances could not be copyrighted because the physical data, if any is derived from actual aircraft documentation whose contents belong to the aircraft manufacturer. If you have such a book I sugeast you check the flyleaf tand I'm certain it is copyrighted. Facts are no copyrightable and Boesing has no copyright in the fact that a B747s winghspan is x ft. Copyright only protects the expression of ideas and facts not the ideas and facts themselves. The publishers of that book would take effective action if they discovered some else had copied and published it.US law defines: A “compilation” is a work formed by the collection and assembling of ]preexisting materials or of data] that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship. The term “compilation” includes collective works.17 U.S.C. §10.It also states copyright protection applies to compilations (a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully.(:( The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.17 U.S.C. §103Creating .cfg or .air files involves the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data and choosing the particular ordering constitutes an an original work of authorship

[rcbarend 37]

Hmm.... interesting opinions !First of all, English is not my native language, so I hope you grasp the idea of what I'm saying below. :( I tend to think that any implementation/realisation of a creative process can be copyrighted.Be it a book, a foto, piece of SW code, or whatever.Back to flightsim addon's:There seems to be consencus on copyright for .mdl file or compiled gauges, from what I read here.However, I don't see the difference (wrt. copyright) between a .mdl file or "data" files like the FDE (.air file AND aircraft.cfg). After all, the implementation of the creative process there lies in "mapping" real world data onto the (limited) dataformat as it is interpreted by the MSFS code.Also, the fact that it's "directly readable text" or not (the difference between .air file and aircraft.cfg, or compiled gauge and XML gauge, cabbed or not), is not relevant IMO.Lastly, another point of discussion related to this that pops up sometimes: can "freeware" be copyrighted or not ?IMO, it can, if the creator choose to do so. To me, it doesn't make a bit of difference whether a creator chooses to ask money for a license to use his stuff, or not. Just another opinion :( For what it's worth when talking about copyright on flightsim addons; after all, the importance of "Copyright" in the FS world is more of a "moral" thing (judged by the FS-community) then a real "legal" thing; maybe I'm wrong, but I can't remember a Copyright issue ever seen going to court.Regards, Rob

[WarpD 824]

If what you say is true then any book titled "Aircraft of.." which tabulates the dimensions, weights, performances could not be copyrighted because the physical data, if any is derived from actual aircraft documentation whose contents belong to the aircraft manufacturer. If you have such a book I sugeast you check the flyleaf tand I'm certain it is copyrighted. Facts are no copyrightable and Boesing has no copyright in the fact that a B747s winghspan is x ft. Copyright only protects the expression of ideas and facts not the ideas and facts themselves. The publishers of that book would take effective action if they discovered some else had copied and published it.US law defines: A “compilation” is a work formed by the collection and assembling of ]preexisting materials or of data] that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship. The term “compilation” includes collective works.17 U.S.C. §10.It also states copyright protection applies to compilations (a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully.(:( The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.17 U.S.C. §103Creating .cfg or .air files involves the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data and choosing the particular ordering constitutes an an original work of authorship

Ok... the quotations are correct... and that is copyright law... but, your interpretation... incorrect.Copyright law for a database operates at two distinct levels. The first level is the physical design/contents/layout/construct of the database itself. The second level is the physical data. A copyright is obtainable for either of them... as long as they are original. Since Microsoft created the 'design/contents/layout/construct' of both the .cfg file as well as the .air file they own the sole copyright to that level. As for the data contained within... unless you're going to claim that you created original data that no one else has... no, you have no copyright there either. It has to be either a unique data layout, unique data itself or the combination... since an ADDON developer can't do any of that without creating a 100% ficticious aircraft... no copyright on either the .cfg or the .air file.Instead of just posting quotes of the law's verbatim text... take the time to read case law regarding it. The U.S. Supreme Court has already seen this argument regarding who owns the copyright to a database/data several times, and your personal interpretation was not how they've ruled at all.

[mgh 89]

Ok... the quotations are correct... and that is copyright law... but, your interpretation... incorrect.Copyright law for a database operates at two distinct levels. The first level is the physical design/contents/layout/construct of the database itself. The second level is the physical data. A copyright is obtainable for either of them... as long as they are original. Since Microsoft created the 'design/contents/layout/construct' of both the .cfg file as well as the .air file they own the sole copyright to that level. As for the data contained within... unless you're going to claim that you created original data that no one else has... no, you have no copyright there either. It has to be either a unique data layout, unique data itself or the combination... since an ADDON developer can't do any of that without creating a 100% ficticious aircraft... no copyright on either the .cfg or the .air file.Instead of just posting quotes of the law's verbatim text... take the time to read case law regarding it. The U.S. Supreme Court has already seen this argument regarding who owns the copyright to a database/data several times, and your personal interpretation was not how they've ruled at all.

The leading case on compilations in US law is the Supreme Court's ruling on Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) Justice O'Connor in delivering the verdict of the court said:This case concerns the interaction of two well-established propositions. The first is that facts are not copyrightable; the other, that compilations of facts generally are....The key to resolving the tension lies in understanding why facts are not copyrightable. The sine qua non of copyright is originality. To qualify for copyright protection, a work must be original to the author. Original, as the term is used in copyright, means only that the work was independently created by the author (as opposed to copied from other works), and that it possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity. To be sure, the requisite level of creativity is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice. The vast majority of works make the grade quite easily, as they possess some creative spark, "no matter how crude, humble or obvious" it might be.Originality does not signify novelty; a work may be original even though it closely resembles other works, so long as the similarity is fortuitous, not the result of copying...Factual compilations, on the other hand, may possess the requisite originality. The compilation author typically chooses which facts to include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the collected data so that they may be used effectively by readers. These choices as to selection and arrangement, so long as they are made independently by the compiler and entail a minimal degree of creativity, are sufficiently original that Congress may protect such compilations through the copyright laws. Thus, even a directory that contains absolutely no protectible written expression, only facts, meets the constitutional minimum for copyright protection if it features an original selection or arrangement..."

[WarpD 824]

The leading case on compilations in US law is the Supreme Court's ruling on Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) Justice O'Connor in delivering the verdict of the court said:This case concerns the interaction of two well-established propositions. The first is that facts are not copyrightable; the other, that compilations of facts generally are....The key to resolving the tension lies in understanding why facts are not copyrightable. The sine qua non of copyright is originality. To qualify for copyright protection, a work must be original to the author. Original, as the term is used in copyright, means only that the work was independently created by the author (as opposed to copied from other works), and that it possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity. To be sure, the requisite level of creativity is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice. The vast majority of works make the grade quite easily, as they possess some creative spark, "no matter how crude, humble or obvious" it might be.Originality does not signify novelty; a work may be original even though it closely resembles other works, so long as the similarity is fortuitous, not the result of copying...Factual compilations, on the other hand, may possess the requisite originality. The compilation author typically chooses which facts to include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the collected data so that they may be used effectively by readers. These choices as to selection and arrangement, so long as they are made independently by the compiler and entail a minimal degree of creativity, are sufficiently original that Congress may protect such compilations through the copyright laws. Thus, even a directory that contains absolutely no protectible written expression, only facts, meets the constitutional minimum for copyright protection if it features an original selection or arrangement..."

As usual you clipped the parts you liked because they support your personal opinion... but you left out the rest of the story.Let's take an aircraft.cfg file and apply your rather limited post to it:Factual compilations, on the other hand, may possess the requisite originality."The compilation author typically" 1- "chooses which facts to include" In the case of an aircraft.cfg that's not really true... unless accuracy isn't a concern at which point it would become a work of fiction. 2- "in what order to place them" In the case of an aircraft.cfg... there actually isn't an order at all.3- "and how to arrange the collected data so that they may be used effectively by readers" There are no 'readers'... and arranging the data has zero impact in any manner whatsoever.Since the actual fields in the aircraft.cfg are defined by Microsoft and the 'order' does nothing... there is no way to meet this:"These choices as to selection and arrangement, so long as they are made independently by the compiler and entail a minimal degree of creativity, are sufficiently original that Congress may protect such compilations through the copyright laws."Oh, and the case law you posted... found that the database in question (a directory) wasn't copyrightable. That particular case law made pretty much every single database out there non-copyrightable. It found that in order to be protected, the database must be original in its selection, coordination, and arrangement. To explain this further:"Thus, a database of unprotectable works (such as basic facts) is protected only as a compilation. Since the underlying data is not protected, U.S. copyright law does not prevent the extraction of unprotected data from an otherwise protectable database. In the example of a database of presidential quotations, it would therefore not be a violation of copyright law to extract (copy) a quotation from George Washington from the database. On the other hand, it would be violation to copy the entire database, as long as the database met the Feist originality and creativity requirements."Since absolutely every single .air file has the exact same format from beginning to end as to how the data is written... that eliminates arrangement from the discussion. Selection is available... but, then again... not really. You can add records to an .air file that's not needed but if you leave out necessary ones... well, it won't work very well. Thus two individuals could make identical .air files based off real world factual data. The restrictive requirements for defining an .air file prevents any realistic originality. I suppose you could make up a bunch of data values in the .air file to meet the 'creativity' requirements... but at that point it's now becoming a work of fiction and not facts.Having gone down this 'legal road' already (read: lawyer(s) involved)... I can assure you that winning a copyright claim on either an aircraft.cfg file or an aircraft's .air file would be unlikely based on current case law.

[Johan_Dees 84]

And then we didnt spoke about repaints, of lets say an KLM 747 for the original 747 what came with FS9.Most said its their work, copyrighted, and so on, but no one asked KLM in the first place to use it, let alone show pictures or youtube movies with it.It cant be copyrighted, only by KLM. (in this example, it can be anything)Did POSKY ask permission from Boeing to replicate their copyrighted 747 design shapes?Maybe the companies dont care, but its hard to put a EULA of copyright on a 'design' you didnt create, but just replicated.Or do I miss some point(s) ?

[mgh 89]

As usual you clipped the parts you liked because they support your personal opinion... but you left out the rest of the story.Let's take an aircraft.cfg file and apply your rather limited post to it:Factual compilations, on the other hand, may possess the requisite originality."The compilation author typically"1- "chooses which facts to include" In the case of an aircraft.cfg that's not really true... unless accuracy isn't a concern at which point it would become a work of fiction.2- "in what order to place them" In the case of an aircraft.cfg... there actually isn't an order at all.3- "and how to arrange the collected data so that they may be used effectively by readers" There are no 'readers'... and arranging the data has zero impact in any manner whatsoever.Since the actual fields in the aircraft.cfg are defined by Microsoft and the 'order' does nothing... there is no way to meet this:"These choices as to selection and arrangement, so long as they are made independently by the compiler and entail a minimal degree of creativity, are sufficiently original that Congress may protect such compilations through the copyright laws."

Yes - let take a .cfg file.1 - The author certainly can choose at least the following facts:atc_id=ui_createdby=ui_variation=kb_checklists=kb_reference=description=performance=[CameraDefinition] parameters[flight_tuning] parameters[keyboard_response] parameters[effects] parameters[forcefeedback] parameters2 - The author obvious can select which order they appear3 - Of course there are readers - .cfg files are text files.Those choices may be regarded as "a modicum of creativity" (see below)

Oh, and the case law you posted... found that the database in question (a directory) wasn't copyrightable. That particular case law made pretty much every single database out there non-copyrightable. It found that in order to be protected, the database must be original in its selection, coordination, and arrangement. To explain this further:"Thus, a database of unprotectable works (such as basic facts) is protected only as a compilation. Since the underlying data is not protected, U.S. copyright law does not prevent the extraction of unprotected data from an otherwise protectable database. In the example of a database of presidential quotations, it would therefore not be a violation of copyright law to extract (copy) a quotation from George Washington from the database. On the other hand, it would be violation to copy the entire database, as long as the database met the Feist originality and creativity requirements."

"The heart of the rationale for the judgement was that:"... there is nothing original in Rural's white pages. The raw data are uncopyrightable facts, and the way in which Rural selected, coordinated, and arranged those facts is not original in any way. Rural's selection of listings - subscribers' names, towns, and telephone numbers - could not be more obvious, and lacks the modicum of creativity necessary to transform mere selection into copyrightable expression. In fact, it is plausible to conclude that Rural did not truly "select" to publish its subscribers' names and telephone numbers, since it was required to do so by state law."It means that a compliation can be copyrighted provideed there is a modicum of creativity.Your quotation, although not from the judgement, supports my case because it makes it clear that compilations can can be copyrighted

Since absolutely every single .air file has the exact same format from beginning to end as to how the data is written... that eliminates arrangement from the discussion. Selection is available... but, then again... not really. You can add records to an .air file that's not needed but if you leave out necessary ones... well, it won't work very well. Thus two individuals could make identical .air files based off real world factual data. The restrictive requirements for defining an .air file prevents any realistic originality. I suppose you could make up a bunch of data values in the .air file to meet the 'creativity' requirements... but at that point it's now becoming a work of fiction and not facts.

Absolutely every single .air file doesn't have the exact same format from beginning to end as to how the data is written1 - The sections in the .air are not always in the same order2 - Not all sections are required, for example, those dealing with ground effect and elasticity3 - There is a choice to have some aerodynamic derivatives in different records. For example, the lift parameters (Cl_spoiler, Cl_flaps, Cl_elevator, and Cl-horizontal tail ) can be in either 1101 or 1539.4 - there is a choice in the size of some of the tables5 - in many cases aerodynamic details are not known and have to be estimated. How many Cl-alpha curves are actually available ? Even if they available it's still necessary to select points from them to include in the . air file table and to decide how to extend their range if neccesary.

Having gone down this 'legal road' already (read: lawyer(s) involved)... I can assure you that winning a copyright claim on either an aircraft.cfg file or an aircraft's .air file would be unlikely based on current case law.

I'd agree that a sensible lawyer would advise a 3rd party developer against taking action in the context of a game. However, I suggeat he might give a very different answer in relation to similar files used in a full-motion simulator, and that the copyright owners would take action to protect their commercial interests.

[WarpD 824]

I'd agree that a sensible lawyer would advise a 3rd party developer against taking action in the context of a game. However, I suggeat he might give a very different answer in relation to similar files used in a full-motion simulator, and that the copyright owners would take action to protect their commercial interests.

And I wish them good luck. They'll need it.