33 minutes ago, Luke said:

Honestly, I don't know what the rights are over modifications of the physical work. Keep in mind that most IP law relates to duplication and not the physical goods. I expect that if you purchase a painting you can do whatever you want with it in a physical sense.

Cheers

 

as long as you not modify it and sell it as your painting 😉

All this „I have to grant you permission to use my models“ is really childish in my opinion. Of you create freeware, it should be viewed as a gift to the community created for the love of flight simming. Asking for all this permission stuff is a bit like giving someone a present and then demanding a „Thank you“ and love in return. Of course, anyone with good behavior should say „Thank you“, but if he doesn‘t, you still would not ask him to return the present.

2 hours ago, simbol said:

This was for a project for MSFS and of course, they were taking all the credit for it.. as a result AIGM banned the usage of anything related to them.

FLAI then also banned those freeware developers from using their models, .

Super, in a roundabout way, MSFS has screwed over again the users of P3D. First, scenery releases have dried up to practically nothing anymore and now freeware AI models. If I smh anymore than I'm currently doing I'd look like a bobble head. Bloody ridiculous!!

1 hour ago, carlito777 said:

All this „I have to grant you permission to use my models“ is really childish in my opinion. Of you create freeware, it should be viewed as a gift to the community created for the love of flight simming. Asking for all this permission stuff is a bit like giving someone a present and then demanding a „Thank you“ and love in return. Of course, anyone with good behavior should say „Thank you“, but if he doesn‘t, you still would not ask him to return the present.

With all due respect, but have you ever contributed any freeware? Not just you to be honest, but all those who have posted in a similar vain. I have contributed several repaints as well as scenery and would be angry if people redistributed my contributions without permission, and definitely so if proper credit wasn’t even given. freeware contributors typically do not have the time and money to go through processes to set up entire license agreements, but that doesn’t mean that there is no license to adhere to. Read the Readme files of things you download: it’s quite common to see a line that says: “do not redistribute anywhere without permission. And when permission has been given, please credit me or include this original readme.” The contributor put in time - not just to make the thing you downloaded, but also to learn the tools, perfect their skills. Don’t underestimate how long it can take to make a ‘simple’ repaint! And sometimes cost is involved too. I paid for an indie license of Substance Painter to make PBR textures for scenery projects, some of which will be released as freeware. I then spent weeks learning the tool and building up experience so now you have something to play with.

Don’t underestimate the investment made by freeware developers. The LEAST you can do is respect their wish to ask for permission when necessary and give credit where it is due! The freeware product is NOT a simple ‘gift’, as you say, and your demand that it be viewed that way by the developer I find insulting and not very respectful. This is NOT about seeking attention or love, or wanting to hear ‘thank you’, either. This is about a developer ensuring that his intellectual rights are not trampled on. You have to understand that freeware products are not your property. As Simbol mentioned, the intellectual  rights stay with the creator and you are given a license, for free, to use it as well. Really not much difference with a pay ware product, except with the freeware you didn’t pay to be allowed it’s use. If you do not agree, then simply don’t use the freeware you downloaded.

EDIT: just an addendum: I wanted to add that freeware developers tend to be, as it is, rather flexible already. The stuff people allow to be done to their work is frankly amazing. Textures replaced, overhauled, AFCADs changed... And developers usually don't complain. You know why? There is this tacit understanding that we are all part of a small community with a niche interest, and it benefits all of us if things get shared and are improved. And if a user, for their personal use, wants to edit an AFCAD to make it compatible with P3Dv5, then most developers will be fine with it. Heck, if a user came to me and said "look, I edited your scenery to make it P3Dv5 compatible", I might even thank them for doing the work for me! That version may even be released publicly with an addendum saying that the conversion was done by xxx. But that credit MUST be given, as per the license.

On that note I will also add that not every developer is the same. You can usually assume that permission must be granted and credit must be given, but that's no always the way it works. Hence the rule: read the Readme.

The only rationale I accept for IP on free content is is to prevent its use in payware.

When I put my photos in the public domain, I accept that someone can download and use them for their own purposes. It would be nice to be credited, but it doesn't bother me.
The only scenario that would cause me to get upset would be if someone were to sell them (edited or not) and profit from my own work. This doesn't apply to the FLAi / repainters situation here.

On a similar note, there was an attempt a year or so ago to get the freeware POSKY 777 working in 64-bit P3D, but that floundered over an inability to contact the licence holders.

Two examples where the benefit to the community is restricted/reduced because of a strange desire of some content creators to have a say in how something is used by other people.

19 minutes ago, F737NG said:

The only rationale I accept for IP on free content is is to prevent its use in payware.

[...]

Simple: if you can't agree to all the terms outlined in the accompanying readme, then don't use the product, freeware or not is irrelevant. It it not up to you to decide what rationale is 'sufficient'. The developer, the person who spent time and money make the thing that you are now using expressed the terms and conditions for the product's use. The only thing you can do is abide by those rules or not use the product. That is it. There is no debate here.

You are allowed to disagree with the terms - but it doesn't change them! I know we live in something of a post-truth world, but the terms are right in front of you in this case: you can't deny that when you open the Readme file, your computer show you its content - and that content matters, whether you like it or not.

Heck, if you download iTunes and redistribute it freely under a different name without crediting Apple, you think Apple is going to let it slide? First they will send you a cease and desist, then they will sue you broke. The fact that a freeware developer and Apple are entities of different scale is not relevant to the principle that one must adhere to the license that was included with the product.

You don't get to decide for the developer what he should or should not do. These things can be highly personal. You find it okay if your'e not always credited, great! Power to you. But your preference is irrelevant when it comes to the products of others.

Personally I want to get credit (no discussion possible). However, my stuff can end up anywhere and everywhere for as far as I'm concerned, as long as it's clear that I'm the one that made it. People can even modify it, repackage and upload, but my name needs to be in the Readme, describing exactly what parts were done by me.

Honestly, it is beyond me that we are even debating this. For payware products people feel that because they paid, they probably can't just do what they want - but with freeware, now suddenly everything is fair game? I'm starting to think I should make all my contributions payware in the future...

6 minutes ago, Benjamin J said:

I'm starting to think I should make all my contributions payware in the future...

If you ever decide or need encouragement to do so, do not hesitate to contact me for FREE advise. 😉

S.

3 minutes ago, simbol said:

If you ever decide or need encouragement to do so, do not hesitate to contact me for FREE advise. 😉

S.

Appreciated! I have emailed with @LVFRicardo on this topic here and there, but the logistics are still rather puzzling to me. I might just take you up on that offer once I actually complete a scenery project that I find is good enough for people to pay for 😉 

15 minutes ago, Benjamin J said:

Appreciated! I have emailed with @LVFRicardo on this topic here and there, but the logistics are still rather puzzling to me. I might just take you up on that offer once I actually complete a scenery project that I find is good enough for people to pay for 😉 

No worries, you know how to find me.. 

S.

The reality is that freeware does not automatically equal open source/unlimited use.

1 hour ago, Benjamin J said:

The developer, the person who spent time and money make the thing that you are now using expressed the terms and conditions for the product's use. The only thing you can do is abide by those rules or not use the product. That is it. There is no debate here.

You’re confusing two things — the legal rights contents creators enjoy and my right to criticize the decisions content creators make.

You and any other freeware content creator enjoy rights, which as you’ve noted are quite extensive (perhaps counterintuitively). Great.

The fact that you legally have those rights does not, however, obligate you to enforce them. Your enforcement of those rights is a choice that you make. And I will criticize that choice if I think it’s the wrong choice.

If I pull a Martin Shkreli, buy the rights to some lifesaving drug, then jack up the price, I’d be acting within my rights. Would no one would have any grounds to criticize me in that scenario?

To return to the matter at hand: you’re right. The repainters have the right to deny permissions and kill this project. And I have the right to scratch my head and wonder how it is that we simmers come to this. Again, and again, and again.

James

Hi,

it's a general role a creator of contents is free to grant or withdraw usage of this contents. Creators of liveries are free to withdraw consent they gave to their usage. (With a little caveat: Did they ask airlines for permission to use their paintings and logos being IP of the airlines? - I hope they did.)

However, we as end-users are also free to have an opinion about this. If there are two competing groups developing traffic add-ons, both not being copyright owners of the liveries they exploit, and the livery developers withdraw usage permission to one of the groups, this leaves at least a bad taste in my mouth.

Kind regards, Michael

Edited January 11, 20215 yr by pmb

50 minutes ago, F737NG said:

When I put my photos in the public domain, I accept that someone can download and use them for their own purposes. It would be nice to be credited, but it doesn't bother me.
The only scenario that would cause me to get upset would be if someone were to sell them (edited or not) and profit from my own work. This doesn't apply to the FLAi / repainters situation here.

I think it is the desire of most freeware developers to see their work downloaded and put to use as intended. In addition to it being upsetting to see someone selling your photos, what about someone that takes your photos and then posts them to other sites claiming they made those photos? Would that upset you? 

What about the scenario where your photos were placed into a public album that was downloaded by thousands of people and you were credited along with the other photographers for what was in that album, but then others started to take your photos from that album and represent them as their own in other usages? Would that upset you?

Most people know their work is going to be downloaded and used in various ways. What they can't accept is when someone represents that work as their own when it's not their work. When people use the album of photos as it was originally intended, no one has a problem with that. However when that album becomes a gateway for abuse of the album's contents, then it becomes a problem and it upsets people.

Maybe the best way to see the community thrive and benefit from developer's free creations is to support those developer's creative rights instead of belittling them, as people have done.

51 minutes ago, honanhal said:

You’re confusing two things — the legal rights contents creators enjoy and my right to criticize the decisions content creators make.

You and any other freeware content creator enjoy rights, which as you’ve noted are quite extensive (perhaps counterintuitively). Great.

The fact that you legally have those rights does not, however, obligate you to enforce them. Your enforcement of those rights is a choice that you make. And I will criticize that choice if I think it’s the wrong choice.

If I pull a Martin Shkreli, buy the rights to some lifesaving drug, then jack up the price, I’d be acting within my rights. Would no one would have any grounds to criticize me in that scenario?

To return to the matter at hand: you’re right. The repainters have the right to deny permissions and kill this project. And I have the right to scratch my head and wonder how it is that we simmers come to this. Again, and again, and again.

James

47 minutes ago, pmb said:

Hi,

it's a general role a creator of contents is free to grant or withdraw usage of this contents. Creators of liveries are free to withdraw consent they gave to their usage. (With a little caveat: Did they ask airlines for permission to use their paintings and logos being IP of the airlines? - I hope they did.)

However, we as end-users are also free to have an opinion about this. If there are two competing groups developing traffic add-ons, both not being copyright owners of the liveries they exploit, and the liery developers withdraw usage permission to one of the groups, this leaves at least a bad taste in my mouth.

Kind regards, Michael

 

To both of you: I'm not arguing against your right to criticize. As a matter of fact, I explicitly stated this in an earlier post.

The Martin Shrekli analogy is however not warranted. While I understand the fundamental point you are making, by using this example you are comparing freeware developers that want to receive credit for their own work - which seems like common sense to me -  with a guy who increased the price of a pharmaceutical that he didn't even develop himself by 5000%... Erm...?

But my message for the both of you is that I think you're being critical of/angry at/having a bad taste left in your mouth by the wrong group of people. When developers rescind permissions they always seem selfish, right? Because that's what much of the criticism in this thread comes down to. But keep in mind: if I understand correctly what happened, the developers rescinded permissions because FLAi and others were not acting by the terms of the licenses. Thus, I would argue that you ought to be mad at FLAi and the others that tried to package the liveries and models, not the developers. Now, to those saying: "But can't you just rescind permissions to those breaching the terms?" Well yes of course, but again: freeware developers usually don't have the time and money on their hands to keep track of this stuff. And what happened in this particular case was that it looked like something of a watershed where multiple groups started packaging and redistributing files without permission. And so I'm guessing this prompted the plug be pulled indiscriminately. Of course I understand people are annoyed by that, at the least. It makes perfect sense. But, please be a little bit more sympathetic to the plight of the developers whose works are being taken without permission and without credit given. Fundamentally, had their work not been taken without permission, there wouldn't have been an issue. Again, personally I think it the least one can do is to abide by the terms, whether you like it or not. And if people are being lazy to ask that permission, to me that just seems disrespectful.

Remember that a large part of the sharing that happens in our community happens on terms of good faith, but that requires trust. Things happening like we see here, where things happen outside of terms set by developers, breaches that trust.

3 minutes ago, Benjamin J said:

But my message for the both of you is that I think you're being critical of/angry at/having a bad taste left in your mouth by the wrong group of people. 

I choose this word deliberately as it isn't directed against anyone explicitely. In fact, I am sure there's been much more going on behind the curtain which I - and maybe even you - don't know.

Kind regards, Michael