4 hours ago, kingnothing75 said:

Hi, My name's Adnan Arif and i created the redesign for KMDW Chicago Midway airport and put it up to sell on simmarket . I believe its my redesign that is causing all this controversy here.  

To put it simply, I was trying to improve upon the existing KMDW Chicago Midway airport that is a part of MSFS2020 now. 

I spent hundreds of hours learning how to use the SDK and then spent many more weeks recreating Midway airport from scratch, and am quite proud of the end-product. I was just as surprised to see it is only 0.4 MB in size.

I have been, for weeks, trying to get into the Microsoft Partner program, hoping i can sell ( on the MSFS Marketplace itself) , any addons or products I make. Never got a reply, application is still pending. 

I finally decided to put it up on flightsim.to for free ( since i wanted others to enjoy it even if i could not sell it anywhere , but literally 2 days later i heard of simmarket, where one can sell their products. So i decided a test run yesterday and put it up on simmarket, while it was still on flightsim.to briefly for a few hours .

Sadly in 1000 downloads on flightsim.to , only 3 people were kind enough to donate some money for the huge amount of time i spent making / redesigning this airport . 

( i am charging for the time spent doing the painstaking redesign, which was maybe a months worth of work). 

But i guess now i am concerned about if it is even legal to sell this ?  I definitely do not want to upset anyone or be in breach of any laws!! If thats the case i prefer to not sell it and put it back up for free.  

Being an amateur SDK designer, i did not create any of the buildings from scratch but used the SDK's included scenery designer to add buildings and objects into the airport. 

I think my next step will be to email Asobo/ Zendesk myself and ask for permission , to see if it is ok to sell this ? if not, i'm taking it off sim-market

sincerely

Adnan

 

 

 

 

The biggest issue with selling stuff rather than freeware is flight simmers are an entitled lot and tend to not tolerate even the slightest minimal fault in Payware and will want any bugs fixed yesterday or demand money back 🙂 .   However if you can tolerate a bit of flak and selling means you are more motivated to keep making content go for it.

The game marketplace is renowned to be slow to accept new products but eventually they should get back to you.  If you get marketplace approval keep the price low as you will be better off long term.

ALSO if the work is quality and legit there are other options including selling direct and also partnership with companies like Orbx ([email protected]) who sell quite a few products on behalf of others.

Edited January 5, 20215 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick

4 hours ago, kingnothing75 said:

I think my next step will be to email Asobo/ Zendesk myself and ask for permission , to see if it is ok to sell this ? if not, i'm taking it off sim-market

Very honest and reasonable position on your side. Probably a good way to progress on this is to finally get a feedback for your requirement to sell your work in the Marketplace, and for sure MS should provide you with an answer on your request, being either positive or negative.

Regarding your effort in developing the KMDW scenery, that I believe we all recognize, you're not alone. There are several developers posting excellent and unbelievable scenery add-ons at Flightsim.to, even with brand new textures, including PBR material and special effects, all built from scratch and particular for each of their products. Fortunately, these devs are continuing improving their products in a day to day basis, to the point that sometimes it's really difficult to track them down.

Cheers, Ed

5 hours ago, kingnothing75 said:

But i guess now i am concerned about if it is even legal to sell this ?  I definitely do not want to upset anyone or be in breach of any laws!! If thats the case i prefer to not sell it and put it back up for free.  

Hi, Adnan.   Let me preface everything by saying I am not a lawyer, I am not a copyright lawyer, and I am not your lawyer.  However, I have long been interested in the intersection of intellectual property and the digital realm and have done a lot of study on it and talked to numerous IP lawyers.

So, when it comes to your legal right to sell this, you need to break the content into two categories:  your own original work, and things that you are using under license.   If everything in that airport, including textures and models, is your original work, then you are the copyright holder of the entire thing and you can do whatever you please with it, in terms of licensing.  And that's the end of the story.

(Within reason -- you can't slap a Microsoft logo on it and deceive people into thinking it's an MS product, but I think most people get that. 🙂 )

The difficulties come in if anything that you distribute is not your own original creative work.  The two big things that can fall under this category in an airport are the ground textures and 3d models. 

Now, this may risk going off-track a bit, but it's a common point of concern for a lot of people so I'd like to ramble a little bit here.  The biggest point of controversy for most MSFS scenery is whether or not it can legally use Google Earth textures and 3D models.   This has been debated extensively, and people have asked Google themselves for clarification, but Google have only pointed people to their license pages and suggested folks consult with their own attorneys on the issue.  (Helpful, huh?)

Regardless of that, for commercial products the case is pretty clear.  If you look at the permissions page for Google Maps/Earth, it says

Quote

You generally don’t need to submit a request to use our mapping products for the purposes covered in these guidelines. As long as you’re following our Terms of Service and these guidelines, as well as attributing properly, feel free to move forward with your project. But do continue to read these guidelines thoroughly to make sure your use is permitted. If your use isn’t allowed, we’re not able to grant exceptions, so please don’t submit a request.

For commercial uses where our mapping products are used for revenue-generating purposes, such as integrating Google Maps or Street View into a mobile or web app, use Google Maps Platform instead.

 

That alone is fairly clear.  And further, under the section for Google Earth:

Quote

All content created from Google Earth or Earth Studio must always be properly attributed.

Google Earth content may not be used for any commercial or promotional purposes.

 

Also fairly straightforward.   So, when it comes to selling your airport, if it contains Google imagery or 3D models exported from Google Earth, you simply should not think of using it commercially.  At all.   At least, not without a separate commercial license of some sort.

Some may raise the question of Fair Use here.   There is a common understanding that something that is commercial doesn't all under the terms of fair use.  However, at least in the US, this is not true.   It is a factor in determining fair use, but not the only one. Here are the factors that come into considerations of fair use in the US:

Quote

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

 

So, commercial nature is one of the factors, but it not of itself disqualifying.  There is case law to support this.  However, if we're looking at an airport scenery, I think we can say that using map imagery as your underlying texture makes it a pretty substantial use.   There are questions about whether there would be any effect of the market value of Google products stemming from you using imagery in a commercial product -- probably not -- but on the whole with 1 and 3 you basically have two strikes against you when it comes to fair use, which is not encouraging.

There probably will never be a definitive answer on this until there is a decided case over it, but I, personally, would not be inclined to tempt the bear here.

The case is less clear when it comes to using their content in a free product.

Looking at the Google Maps/Google Earth Additional Terms of Service, they say:

Quote

License. As long as you follow these Terms, the Google Terms of Service give you a license to use Google Maps/Google Earth, including features that allow you to:

1. view and annotate maps;

2. create KML files and map layers; and

3. publicly display content with proper attribution online, in video, and in print.

For more details about specific things that you’re permitted to do with Google Maps/Google Earth, please see the Using Google Maps, Google Earth, and Street View permissions page.

 

So far so good.  But, first, we need to look further, because the next session lists prohibited conduct (with some additional emphasis added by me on clauses 1, 2, and 3)

Quote

• Prohibited Conduct. Your compliance with this Section 2 is a condition of your license to use Google Maps/Google Earth. When using Google Maps/Google Earth, you may not (or allow those acting on your behalf to):

  1. redistribute or sell any part of Google Maps/Google Earth or create a new product or service based on Google Maps/Google Earth (unless you use the Google Maps/Google Earth APIs in accordance with their terms of service);

  2. copy the content (unless you are otherwise permitted to do so by the Using Google Maps, Google Earth, and Street View permissions page or applicable intellectual property law, including "fair use");

  3. mass download or create bulk feeds of the content (or let anyone else do so);

  4. use Google Maps/Google Earth to create or augment any other mapping-related dataset (including a mapping or navigation dataset, business listings database, mailing list, or telemarketing list) for use in a service that is a substitute for, or a substantially similar service to, Google Maps/Google Earth; or

  5. use any part of Google Maps/Google Earth with other people's products or services for or in connection with real-time navigation or autonomous vehicle control, except through a specific Google-provided feature such as Android Auto.

 

Now, we can debate which particular category using Google photo- and 3D-imagery falls into. if any.   A lot of folks feel that point 1 is definitive -- that, because of that, fair use would be the only legal way to redistribute their content.  And I think there's a good case for that.   But it's complicated by point 2;  you are allowed to "copy the content" as long as you follow their permissions page, which seems to say that non-commercial use is fine.  We appear to have a contradiction here.

Because of this, the terms are unclear -- what is "any part of Google Maps/Earth", and why is it mentioned separately from content?  One potential interpretation is that the "part" in clause 1 refers to elements of the service and software itself.   Meaning, you cannot, for example, create a product that uses the Maps APi and charge people for it.  This would not cover downloading base imagery.   But, that's only one interpretation.

(There's also the potential that point 3 might apply -- what counts as "mass download"?   My own feeling is that using the 2D imagery from a small area doesn't feel like "mass download", but sucking down the entire 3D model of a whole city probably is.  But that's my own lay opinion, and would have little weight in court.)

So, we have a bit of a conundrum when it comes to non-commercial content.  I'd say, on the whole, that unless you can argue that only point 2 applies to your content, even non-commercial use is prohibited.

 

With, of course, the loophole being fair use.  And, again, we get back to that base point:  fair use itself isn't clear.  We do have a bit more leeway because it's not a commercial product, so to a degree it comes down to the "nature of the copyrighted work".   The intent here is to provide greater protection for works that are in the same area -- eg, using a snippet of a song in another audio recording would probably be judged more harshly than simply using it as incidental music in something else.

I'd suggest that, when it comes to using ground imagery, the main point of an airport is not to represent the ground.  It is to represent the airport as an entire creative work, and the ground is only part of that.  However, when it comes to photogrammetry, it would be a bet more difficult to argue that content that is explicitly meant to provide a 3D view of a city doesn't overlap significantly with a product for which a good part of the content and usage... is to provide 3D views.

 

At any rate, this has gotten much longer than intended.   I think my basic point is that, looking at all this, my own educated lay opinion -- and I reiterate that it is nothing more than that -- is that using any Google content in a commercial work is expressly forbidden.  There is probably a fairly good argument that airport scenery doesn't exist with the intent of only representing the ground, so using ground imagery could easily fall under fair use.  However, photogrammetry is in a much more dubious area.

None of this will really be resolved without a lawsuit, though.   Google may well feel that folks creating 3D models of a city for use in a flight simulator is not a threat to their IP, and never take any action, in which case the point is moot.  So far that has been the case, and that may end up being the definitive answer.  But they may.  I think, in the end, folks individually need to consider these things and determine for themselves what their level of comfort with these gray areas is.

As I say though -- commercial use is very black and white.  I wouldn't try to sell anything with Google content in it.

(Another thing that is obvious is that even non-commercial use needs to come with attribution.  If I were one of the folks bundling Google imagery in scenery, I'd be sure to include an attribution notice with it just to play it safe there.)

 

Now, one last note:  this has focused on Google because it's the biggest case, but it applies to any other non-original content.  One area where folks could get into trouble is where it comes to using 3D models not of their own creation.   I myself had to spend some time thinking about this when I created a silly little scenery that used a model from 3D warehouse  Now, the default for any creative work that does not have a license for re-use is that you cannot do it.  However, the creator of this one helpfully stated that you can "use it for any works you need to", and I took this as permission to rebundle it in another non-commercial product.

If it had no license information, I probably would not have.

(There may be TOS in general on 3D Warehouse which grants users a license by default, I didn't go that far into researching it.)

I believe that all of the models you use are your own original work, in which case this is not an issue.   But if you've re-used any, you probably want to double check the terms before you try to sell them.

 

Wow.  That was long.  Hopefully it was helpful.  Sorry if it was just a bunch of rambling.  This is something I care about that a lot of folks find confusing, so I tend to go into detail when it comes up.

(And hello from Park Ridge!)

 

Edited January 5, 20215 yr by kaosfere

5 hours ago, kingnothing75 said:

and am quite proud of the end-product

And rightfully so! But imho a payware scenery takes more than having mastered the SDK, as much as I admire your efforts. And staying honest, I think you belong in category four:

5 hours ago, Tom_L said:

talented developers who have mastered the beginnings of scenery design and start their venture into the market too early by misjudging their results

 

1 hour ago, DJJose said:

Since you are new here and to this line of work, I'll advise you to take it off simmarket and offer it for free at flightsim.to.

Yep, then hone your skills, improve in modeling and texturing your own assets and enter the market with products more individual and unique - looking forward to it.

@kingnothing75 your airport is still available for download at allflightmods. If you decide to keep it as a payware you might want to remove it from that site.

14 minutes ago, DJJose said:

@kingnothing75 your airport is still available for download at allflightmods. If you decide to keep it as a payware you might want to remove it from that site.

You can't remove it. They scrape everything and then ignore any contact requests to take it down. Anything that turns up free and subsequently becomes payware will get the same treatment. There are a few other similar sites with the same MO, some put a giant donation button above the download bit. 

I'd never do payware myself. Some people are entitled enough even when it's free. There's also the possibility of Asobo mangling your product with their own update and sometimes you may never be able to restore it.

I've noticed a couple of places I've done have been completely upended, for the worse, with some sort of new terrain info applied to them that happened when I was wasn't looking. 

When it's free you can simply say 'ho hum' and abandon it if it can't be salvaged, or you can't be bloody bothered. If someone's paid for it they're going to be a lot more vocal. 

For those who do want to go down the payware route I think you need to start off with a certain approach and attitude from the beginning. Declaring you've put lots of work in so should get some money for it won't really work. 

 

I'd say continue with freeware development, asking for donations. Then try to bring out more quality product. As your rep grows, so will the donations. At some point then, you may want to take a NEW product to payware but you have a track record by then.

Just creating this type of product and making it payware could be a recipe for disaster. Are yoiu really prepared for the support calls and demands you might receive? It's bad enough when it's freeware but when you take people's money they get VERY insistent when something isn't right o them.

Take @DDJose's advice - take it off the market and keep it freeware.

4 hours ago, vgbaron said:

I'd say continue with freeware development, asking for donations. Then try to bring out more quality product. As your rep grows, so will the donations. At some point then, you may want to take a NEW product to payware but you have a track record by then.

Just creating this type of product and making it payware could be a recipe for disaster. Are yoiu really prepared for the support calls and demands you might receive? It's bad enough when it's freeware but when you take people's money they get VERY insistent when something isn't right o them.

Take @DDJose's advice - take it off the market and keep it freeware.

Totally agree with that. An example, this freeware of Istanbul Airport (https://flightsim.to/file/2217/istanbul-airport), it has so far the best freeware quality on any sim I have seen, no not only that, it competes with payware as well (just compare it to recently released istanbul airport on P3D with 30euro price label). I wanted to donate but that guy refuses to take donation, however if he ever release a payware, I would be definitely buying it with zero hesitation as I know the quality of developer through his super awesome freeware airport.

 

Edited January 5, 20215 yr by omarsmak30

Wow, lots of lawyers in this thread. I welcome developers charging for their work, as my experience is that freeware eventually gets abandoned and thus unsupported. Also, if a payware developer can't access assets that are part of the base sim, then MSFS is vastly different than all other flightsims. 

39 minutes ago, jabloomf1230 said:

Also, if a payware developer can't access assets that are part of the base sim, then MSFS is vastly different than all other flightsims. 

That was a bit of an odd observation. There's little point in having a developer kit stuffed with items if you can't use them however you want. Obviously sticking them in other sims is another matter. All the payware I've bought has plenty of it. I thought that was the point of it being there. 

The future of payware, or anyware, on here is interesting. Asobo updates will keep breaking and breaking it. I expect lower tier payware to be almost inevitably abandoned. 

Even though I fully understand that someone wants a reward for putting effort into something, I still find it somewhat odd to build an airport purely from standard objects and then charging money for. If I‘d buy an add-on and then find out that it would be 400 Kb in size, I would be „suprised“ to say it kindly.

Thank you all for your input. I emailed MFS through Zendesk and will wait for their reply. But i appreciate everyone's input greatly. Thank you! I'm leaning on taking it off simmarket and putting it back on as freeware. I did not realize it was on this other website for free , that ive never heard of (www.allflightmods) ! 

Pah. Do whatever you want. It's your work and your decision. You may do good business. If nothing else you'll learn something. 

Personally I wouldn't be bothered if payware was almost entirely stock items if done well enough. There's some absolutely hideous payware that thinks just because it has a couple of blocky scratch builds it deserves a price. 

I guess for many it's the replica aspect that counts the most. I'm more interested in it being good overall. 

 

42 minutes ago, superspud said:

Pah. Do whatever you want. It's your work and your decision. You may do good business. If nothing else you'll learn something. 

Personally I wouldn't be bothered if payware was almost entirely stock items if done well enough. There's some absolutely hideous payware that thinks just because it has a couple of blocky scratch builds it deserves a price. 

I guess for many it's the replica aspect that counts the most. I'm more interested in it being good overall. 

 

Indeed having spent a lot of years in the past doing textures and reskinning for IL2 1946 as well as producing template packs for other people to reskin,  I have seen some awful custom textures and reskins and some stunning stuff (some of the best at the time was done by a professional full time graphic artist, some Hungarian guy I believe) . 

I am not sure where the elitist "all Payware must have custom textures and objects or it is a rip off"   thing is coming from, but I personally would choose something professionally laid out with clever use of default well made objects and textures over some custom but amateur thing any day.

Edited January 6, 20215 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick

It's definitely NOT acceptable for an international airport to be sold as a payware on simmarket with a default terminal building. It's appalling that Simmarket would even put that up for a moment. (It appears to be down now.)

I snagged this from flightsim.to while it was up, and I noticed something odd about the jetways. They are actually LVFR jetways!!!