41 replies to this topic

[SirMoo]

Recently there has been some discussion in the AE Chat about templates, ownership and copyright to them. Interestingly, what most people are saying/claiming is wrong, and borderline illegal in most developed nations. It's sad to hear that that the ignorance of some AE users, the ones creating the templates are leading users astray and going as far as threatening them. Sadly, the AE staff are rather uninformed on this topic and do not appear to be handling it in a 'ideal' way to prevent other users from blatantly threatening each other over the use of templates.

So allow me to make some things clear, I will be using US and UK copyright law as examples, Canadian and Australian law share similar views on this. Furthermore, International Law applies. If you have a problem with these laws, it's best you don't play an American game.

1. If you take a template from Jetabout and add winglets then claim it as your own, it is NOT your template, you do not own the rights to it. Copyright law is pretty clear on this, minor editing does not constitute a new creation.
For Example: If I drew eyebrows on the Mona Lisa... I could not claim it as the Mooalisa. It's still the Mona Lisa. Adding winglets, sharlets, new doors, windows, etc, etc, etc, etc, does not make it a new work. It does NOT make it YOUR work. It's still the work of the original owner, it's simply been 'vandalized' by you.
2. Retro-Active Licensing: If you post your template online and say “It's free to use by all”. Guess what! Under most laws in civilized nations... it's now free to use by all. Thus changing, editing, modifying and displaying in whatever way the person desires. Since you said it is free to use by all, you can NOT then go back and say “No, wait, I don't like your airline alliance and you can not use that on my template.” Releasing to the public does not mean you can make terms on it AFTER the fact. Once you've told people they can use it how they like the document has legally entered the Public Domain. Be very clear when you release it about the terms of that release.
3. Credit where Credit is Due: Most people use Jetabout templates and violate the rules. This is illegal and in some cases copyright fraud (see Post 1). If you make minor modifications like winglets, new doors, etc, the image is STILL property of Jetabout and you are LEGALLY required to post their logo, link or other form of credit ON the image as described by them. Any changes you make to an original image by them requires this credit, unless you have express permission from them to remove it. Modifying the image then claiming you made it is not only illegal, it's rather pathetic. Claiming ownership for someone's work is really just sad. There seems to be a major blind eye being turned to template makers on AE who are using the work of others and claiming it to be their own. It's free. Give credit. Simple as that.

When it comes to licensing and giving permission, you should be VERY specific on what you will and won't allow. If you don't want XYZ Alliance to use the image then mention which specific alliances can. Remember that explicitly mentioning a specific member (or alliance) who CANNOT use the template may constitute a personal attack, leaving out a certain group of people (or alliance) when saying who has permission is much nicer. However, failure to be specific does not mean you can tell that person to remove it. For an easy way to create a set of rules, use a Creative Commons licenses. http://creativecommons.org/choose/

I hope the AE staff will take a harsher stance on template trolls who claim work as their own when it's not, as-well-as do more to prevent them from threatening other users. Anyone interested in debating copyright law will need to read the Berne Convention of 1886 as well as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Copyright Directive 2001/29/EC (EU) to even begin a constructive argument. These are the main documents which shape the modern world's copyright law.

[BritAbroad]

I personally think its an important issue, if only to prevent arguments. If people don't read it, so be it. The information is now here, so there's no excuses. There may well be no legal case brought, but its an important ethical issue.


As such, topic pinned, and the other shorter post removed.

[BritAbroad]

I have read it, and I personally found the text here a good way of clarifying my knowledge on the matter. Maybe thats just me, but it didn't confuse me. As such, it still stands - its here if people want to read it, if they don't, so be it.

[BritAbroad]

PS, in response to SB's edit that occured while I posted:

Furthermore, you lot have a go at me for 'ruining something that is a part of AE'... tell me, how is bringing copyright laws into every argument not going to have that same effect, my actions would apparently have had? If you want making liveries on this forum to be a 'fun experience', quoting copyright law, with most likely no understanding, isn't going to help.

Here you raise a very good point. My response to that is that I personally thought your charging for liveries was unethical (not illegal etc), and people claiming work to be their own and people telling people they can't use their work after previously agreeing to it are also unethical in my book ("work" meaning liveries, templates etc, from all users). As most people on AE are young people without access to lawyers, the law isn't the point - its about negative feelings that can arise from such matters. If people know whats considered correct legally, its a good start from an ethical point. If someone choses to ignore this, they can and I imagine there'll be little significant repurcussion.

There's no reason to quote copyright law with all liveries, just the simple understanding that falsely claiming work to be one's own, and telling someone they can't use one's work after its already been created without that understanding is "wrong" - something that I think everybody is aware of on some level anyway. This post just goes some way to illustrate that.





And only half a brain? I have a job where I'm paid to have less than that!

[Zmapper]

I actually find what Sirmoo posted quite informative. Thank you for posting that Sirmoo.

[BritAbroad]

Question is, do you have any idea as to how to implement it in the context of AE and the situations that could arise?

This is something I will be raising with the other staff in time. If need be, Moo's post may be transferred to the staff room, to ensure all mod's are aware of what is right and wrong, lawful and unlawful, as I think that was a critical issue.

[BritAbroad]

I can assure you Brit, other than some of the older Mods, they're not going to be able to enforce it correctly. You'd probably manage, as could Yuxi, however none of the other mods, frankly, could I see being able to implement this correctly. I'll be jolly surprised if this has the intended effect, let's put it that way.

That's not for me to say, agree or disagree with.
However, to be honest an approved system can be enforced by a monkey so age shouldn't matter, hence why I've raised the notion of an approved system with staff.

Either way, we'll see what happens.

[lvan]

So does this mean I can freely use SB's 747-8I template with full credit to Jetabout and SB can't tell me to remove it???

[BritAbroad]

What exactly does this 'approval system' entail, then? It's obviously something far different to what I am envisaging, if it can be 'enforced by a monkey.

Rather than "appoval" (which would be more complicated), you'll notice I wrote "approved" system - i.e. something agreed by senior staff as being acceptable. Its easily enforced if its a simple list of "cans" and "can'ts", posted in the staff forum with an appropriate and standard response listed.

[Yuxi]

However, I, who is not exactly an idiot, along with most others here, not only can't be asked to read it, probably wouldn't understand it, let alone put the law into practice, without a good deal of experience.

Once again, the hostility and arrogance in your replies astound me. Don't assume "most others here" think the same way you do. I for one appreciate that someone's trying to help settle these disputes. Just because you're ignorant of copyright law doesn't mean you shouldn't learn.

I, who is not exactly an idiot

It's hard to make that argument without proper grammar

[un1]

Sadly, the AE staff are rather uninformed on this topic and do not appear to be handling it in a 'ideal' way to prevent other users from blatantly threatening each other over the use of templates.

You pretty much left AE and you are still criticizing our staff...

I hope the AE staff will take a harsher stance on template trolls who claim work as their own when it's not, as-well-as do more to prevent them from threatening other users.

Personally I'm pretty unaware of this (so I'm rather shocked that someone who has pretty much left AE knows more than me ), can anyone help me out here?

[Yuxi]

Don't say I didn't warn you when users start quoting copyright laws aimlessly, fuelling yet more arguments over the misuse of such law and whether it is indeed valid...

After all Brit, you're an educated fellow who actually has half a brain.

In case you haven't noticed, you're the one starting these pointless arguments (like in this thread). Comments like this are the problem, not the solution.

[BritAbroad]

So does this mean I can freely use SB's 747-8I template with full credit to Jetabout and SB can't tell me to remove it???

You have answered your own question:
No. I don't know the tempate in question, but...
If its SB's own work, legally it can be used with full credit to SB, if this was acceptable at the time it was given to you.
If we're talking about a JetAbout template that SB has modified, then the same applies, but with credit to both.

Of course, you may chose the gentleman's agreement approach - if someone asks you not to do something, you can accept that.

Right, so you're going to list every possible situation that could arise and state the appropriate action? Or something along those lines? Good luck

I personally think Moo has essentially created that list in the first post. All that I think is required is a simple standard "response". I have nothing further to say than that, and there will be discussion in the staff room over that.

[lvan]

Kay, great.