No argument that things should be more clearly defined. That's one reason lawyers and legislators aren't averse anymore to using language that is superficially simple, but practically difficult to agree on the application of.

 

Not mandating against personal use is just trying to separate use that is covered from that which isn't.

 

What a fine mess about absolutely nothing really.  

 

Silly models being created by people who love doing it in their spare time, packaged into a MDL file by a group of people who love doing it in their spare time for use by people who love simming in their spare time, who also happen to create videos for the enjoyment of many in their spare time.

 

Trust an idiot to introduce concepts like infringement, copyright and violation to stop the enjoyment for all.  This hobby seems to be peppered with people who take their fiefdoms and themselves soooo seriously that they absolutely miss the point of why we are doing things in the first place anyway.

 

This is easily the best post in the entire thread.

That really is the question. Don't you have to legally register a copyright? You can't just claim it because you say so.

 

In the US, I believe that is broadly true (though I believe a simplification) but in the UK (and I believe also in other Common Law jurisdictions), you get it automatically and there is no register of copyright and you can automatically claim copyright in any work you create that qualifies for copyright protection.

 

Given the MTL models are likely to come from multiple countries, each with differing views on copyright, this whole shebang becomes a lot more complicated (as if it wasn't complicated enough already...), and that's without even touching whether IVAO have standing.

Don't you have to legally register a copyright? You can't just claim it because you say so.

 

If you borrow a book from the library (the library owns the book) and photocopy and distribute its contents without permission, the library can't sue you for copyright infringement. It's the book author's claim on misuse that is valid.

Whilst you can register for things like trademarks, there is no requirement to do so; the creator of the work automatically has all rights to it (including applicable copyright) unless they've signed a contract with another party (such as an employer or customer) that says otherwise. They can transfer those rights to others to enforce is they so wish. Providing they can prove they are the original author of the work, that's all that's needed, and that normally starts with a copyright notice within the work.

 

This is generally true for most of the world although there are always exceptions and in some countries it is notoriously difficult to enforce any intellectual property rights. A good example of this is the Chinese car industry copying the styling of European and US manufacturers.

 

In the case of MTL, IVAO cannot claim copyright of the models and textures used in it since they are not the author, nor have rights been transferred to them. Any work they created, such as the MTL tool and configuration files etc they will have the rights to.

 

I am shocked by IVAO's seemingly petulant attitude on this matter, it's just alienating their members and potential members; there is a VATSIM forum thread regarding MTL that IVAO have contributed to and it doesn't paint them in a good light either. Most disappointing.

 

I am shocked by IVAO's seemingly petulant attitude on this matter, it's just alienating their members and potential members.

Well, I can tell you one thing...if I was a member of IVAO, I'd switch organisation out of principle.  A witch hunt to shut down good people producing enjoyable content for the community is just beyond any reason.  IVAO's executive committee (whatever that means) has no control over its organisation - clearly.  

What a fine mess about absolutely nothing really.  

 

Silly models being created by people who love doing it in their spare time, packaged into a MDL file by a group of people who love doing it in their spare time for use by people who love simming in their spare time, who also happen to create videos for the enjoyment of many in their spare time.

 

Trust an idiot to introduce concepts like infringement, copyright and violation to stop the enjoyment for all.  This hobby seems to be peppered with people who take their fiefdoms and themselves soooo seriously that they absolutely miss the point of why we are doing things in the first place anyway.

 

Hear! Hear!

Yes, very good! Best post.

The copyright defines terms under which it can be viewed which actually define the concept of private versus public viewing. It does not tell you what room you can watch it in, it does not tell you who you can and can not watch it with, it does not tell you what brand of player you can use to view the disc.

 

IVAO can not tell you that AI models installed on your computer for personal use can only be used while on their network. How they appear on your computer is not something they can control. To claim they can would mean that a slide show of AI models being displayed on your personal computer would be a violation of said copyright. It clearly wouldn't, and isn't even remotely enforceable.

 

IVAO's copyright is a distribution/organization copyright. They don't even hold the copyrights to the physical models nor the paints being used with said models.

I think you are confusing enforcability with claim. THEORETICALLY a copyright holder may define any proper use they want. PRACTICALLY many copyright violations are never found out. But this does not mean that they are not there.

 

IF Ivao indeed holds the copyright to the files in question, they can allow or prohibit any usage they want. If you don't like the terms of the copyright, don't use the material.

 

That is the legal long and short of it. Almost everything else in copyright lawsuits is usually a wrangle about the terms in the copyright statement which are usually so broad that they are not clear.

 

From a professional point of view, DaveCT2003 has got it nailed down.

Yes, I can see you're working very hard to avoid using the word 'use' to support your earlier claim that copyright doesn't mandate against use, but common practice is to talk in terms of 'use'. Standard DVD copyright warning:

 

"Use in other locations such as airlines, clubs, coaches, hospitals, hotels, oil rigs, prisons, schools and ships is prohibited unless expressly authorized by the copyright proprietor."

Yet, I can watch any film I own on an iPad or a tablet or a cell phone in absolutely any of those locations and it's perfectly legal and not a violation of the copyright.

 

You are arguing public use versus private use. Show me where the copyright tells me what brand of player to use. Show me where the copyright states I can't watch the disc on my personal computer while flying on VATSIM. Copyrights can't prohibit such concepts and you know it.

I see no issues with wav animation in Prepar3D.

 

 

Looks very good indeed!

It looks great. Which begs the question.....why does it not look like that on my PC?

It looks great. Which begs the question.....why does it not look like that on my PC?

 

I'm with Christopher.  Same  issue for me.

Hey guys,

 

When threads get this long, they degrade because people don't have the time to go back and read all the posts. When this happens, people's posts unintentionally become nitpick like, often responding to one term or statement rather than the big picture of what someone has said.

 

The problem this creates is that people respond to one statement, usually taken far out of context, and move forward from a perceived position of being correct.  If responded to, especially if told they are "wrong", it can easily create ill feelings between people - ones that I've seen carry over into different topics and even different websites..

 

Before responding or criticizing someone, one might perhaps go back and read the thread, particularly what someone has said in previous posts in that thread.  Doing that helps to form a complete picture before you make a public statement.

 

I sincerely and respectfully ask that you consider this.

 

Thank you, and happy flights!

One of the rights a copyright holder has, is the right to control derivative works.  So if Boeing designs a 737 airliner, it has the right to control works derived from its design.  According to this logic, they have the right to control the sale and distribution of models of that 737, including both plastic models and digital models.

 

An airliner is not a piece of intellectual property (although its designs and software are) and therefore cannot be copyrighted.

 

If there is some new and novel technology in it, that can be patented, and the name can be trademarked, but the airliner cannot be copyrighted because it is a tangible, physical good.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

Much to do about nothing (of any real importance)...

 

A YouTube video by one of the Milviz beta testers was subjected to a DMCA for having "wind noise" in the audio track. :rolleyes:

In the US, I believe that is broadly true (though I believe a simplification) but in the UK (and I believe also in other Common Law jurisdictions), you get it automatically and there is no register of copyright and you can automatically claim copyright in any work you create that qualifies for copyright protection.

 

 

I don't think there is any concept in Common Law of "copyright" (this is a significant difference from trademark).  Copyright only exists insofar as government has created law creating it. In the US, copyright exists when an original work is fixed in tangible medium of expression.

 

But in this instance, I don't think OP ever explained exactly what infringement was claimed by IVAO just that youtube had received a takedown notice.  IIUC, OP created an audio-visual work that contained depictions (renderings) of certain computer codes and images used within flgiht simulator.

 

scott s.

.