Addressing abandoned works in the F/L

[eric]

I'd referenced this in another thread, but thought it might deserve some conversation on its own.

Just for fun, I added up all of the files in the file library, and there are just shy of 25,000 objects available for download.

Since the forums have been active for so long, there are more and more works which are "abandoned" by their original authors as they have moved on to other hobbies, and the information available in the "ReadMe" is no longer current.

Let's say that 5% of the contributors are no longer active in the community.

That means there are 1,250 objects for which there is no owner who can be contacted.

I'd guess the number is considerably higher, perhaps 20% or more.

The purpose of this post is to propose to Nels a change to terms and conditions for uploading files to the library, which provides for a dormancy clause that supercedes any language in the EULA:

1) the uploading member's last activity on the forums was more than three years ago
2) email sent to the known addresses from the ReadMe comes back as undeliverable
3) PM's sent to their user profile are unopened (verified by using the "Read Receipt" function)

If all three of the conditions are present, the work is considered public domain for re-use/re-release with attribution in freeware projects. US copyright law doesn't recognize the concept of orphan works, but if it's understood that this as a condition for distributing works via the file library, it would eliminate some of the liability that exists for having a file library filled with orphaned works.

I'd think it's a simple change to effect -- Nels has the right to change the site's terms & conditions.

Anyone who objects would still have the ability to enforce their rights, and just wouldn't be able to upload their stuff.

And the rest of us? We'd continue to publish our stuff and not worry about it.


Thoughts? Comments? Objections?

[mestevet]

I understand what you're trying to say here, and I agree with the sentiment: "If we can't contact the author, shouldn't we be able to consider it 'abandoned' and repaint/reuse, etc.?" It's a frustrating situation, and I agree that if we could contact an author they'd probably allow reasonable reuse.

The problem with your plan, as I see it, is that it is inconsistent with US Copyright law. As you correctly point out, there isn't a real definition of abandoned work in US Copyright law, as I understand it. I think this is because of the way the terms of copyrights are defined - for single individuals it's 70 years after the death of the author. So if I died tomorrow, the copyright on my software would expire at the end of 2080 - since my wife and after her my sons would be the heirs of my estate, you'd have to seek permission from them to use my works. Three years, which is in essence what you're saying, is not even close to the period required by law.

I can understand the reason why the law exists this way: What's to stop someone from saying "I tried to contact the author and seek permission but couldn't find them, so I just assumed they didn't care and used it anyway" even though they may have done none of that?

Another flaw in the plan is that you don't know if some of these authors might come back to the TrainSim community some day. Some folks HAVE come back after a long absence. What would their opinion be if they came back after 5 years away and found that their works had been "lifted" without permission? Some may be OK with it, others may be downright ANGRY, and I believe with just cause.

I simply think that there's no legal basis for the plan you've outlined. Nels, being the guy who'd be on the hook for allowing folks to violate US Copyright law, isn't going to allow it, because he'd be the one liable if anyone decided to make a stink about it.

Again, understand, I DO understand where you're coming from, and that the intent is pure, I'm not questioning that.

Steve

[crstagg]

As I read your plan it would be similar to going to the local library checking out "Gone With the Wind", making a copy of it. Then writing the Publisher and the letter returned by the USPO as undeliverable due to publishing company no longer in business. Then writing Margaret Mitchell at her last known address only to have the letter returned because the USPO does not deliver mail to cemetery plots. So now I can print and sell my book "Gone With the Breeze, the life and trials of Red O'Hair" ? I think not. Your plan needs a caveat about not being used for commercial purposes.

[wacampbell]

I don't understand why it is so important to redistribute this work. Its there in the library. You can use it in your routes. If the author restricts redistribution, it seems like a simple enough request. If you can't contact him, just don't redistribute it. Move on and find something else to do.

[clashley]

As a developer, I think this notion is insidious. From my perspective, it's yet another thinly-veiled attempt in the long saga of unscrupulous community users to circumvent copyright protection of developers who have invested hundreds of hours in creating content, then *freely* provided that content to the community.

Neither Nels nor any other site owner has the authority to declare a contributor's work to be public domain. Only the original copyright holder has that privilege (either by decision or their death+time). Nels does have the ability to remove items from the file library if he so chooses if the archive author is no longer available, but that would seem like a rather significant task, considering the size of the F/L. Even if Nels had the ability to enact the policy you propose (which he legally does not), existing works in the F/L would have to be grandfathered since they were not uploaded under those terms.

As a developer, I would not upload files to any library that presumed to assert ownership of my intellectual property under any circumstances, and I suspect that many developers would feel the same. Such a policy would most likely have the net effect of curtailing submissions to the F/L to point where it would become a dead resource.

[QcRail]

Thank you for raising a pertinent subject, yet to many it is like house keeping - some a real squirrels, others have a strong minimalist approach and little is kept. Personnaly, I would favor some sort of «upgrading» and clearing old «dusty files». I'm sure there is a way at tracking the access date of any file; perhaps it could be another element to consider.

What I implore the most is the issue of copyright - DO NOT FORGET that the so called collection of 25 000 objects is a testimony of a collective effort in which each contributor derives a personnal reward for sharing his/her contribution. I do thank all these wonderful creators and generous contributors.

Contrary to the printing, the music and the film industry, to name a few, the Trainsim.com and its content is not aimed at profits, nor in monatery compensation for the contributor's efforts. This site is not a business for profit and its 10 years or more of operation illustrates how important our goal is simple - sharing. I have done my share of downloading and now I am doing a modest contribution of my own and it is for all to enjoy. Also, all commercial ventures oriented to this «virtual hobby» are not to be found on this site; it only provides a link (by the way is it a courtesy gesture or does it help pay the running fees of this server ?). They, therefore, control their business.

May we keep it simple in intent and logic ?

As a creator, my first satisfaction is achieving my objective - whether reskinning, 3d modeling, image/photo retouching, etc. and doing it the best you can (since one never possess all the tricks in the trade ). All in the quest of fun and enjoyment. I could write pages about the complex process involved during a creative endeavor and one would be surprise how well known artist have taken references in the past, often to improve upon it or give it a new meaning.

[OTTODAD]

Bottom Line !

If the Freeware author has imposed restrictions on the use of his creation/s, such as re-distribution and can not be contacted to get permission for whatever then just do not use it.

There is still plenty more to choose from.

O t t o

[frankoburns]

Simple conclusion...
2010: My photo...


2020: I've been dead 5 years....Still my photo!


How about we abandon this redundant subject and talk about Christmas?

[mdeming]

There is also a strong "You did not give proper credit" group active in the community. I understand all about giving credit yadda yadda yadda. While purposefully not giving credit is wrong, and we have gone over this subject way too many times before, there is also the dude who forgets and leaves a few out, or who does not live up to the creators wishes, such as one eula I read where the guy wanted a link to his web site, and I am sure there are other equally silly requirements out there. I am the other way, I don't want my name listed in some silly credits file, cause I just do not care. If you use my stuff fine, if you think its junk fine. However after reading so many of these types of threads on the subject I decided a few years back that whatever I do in the future with any type of content creation, is for my own personal use alone, and rather than risk offending people it is easier to just not upload anything.

[geepster775]

Yes, under your plan, the owner of the forums would be on the hook, legally, for those instances when one of those handful of freeware content providers has an issue with it. But it does seem that 19% of that 20% is held hostage by that 1% whose creators give a durn and are sticky about it.

A better solution would be to restrict contributions for this file library only to those providers who don't have a problem with it, make acceptance of that principle a condition of uploading. If someone is sensitive about their freeware, they can distribute it on their own website on their own dime instead, and keep it out of here. That will release that 19% of content whose creators don't care, and is currently being held hostage by that 1% that does.

[Tailwheel]

[RANT ON]
Do not mean to be disrespectful toward any one but these threads are completely useless. Nothing will change like always and there will always be the "I want to use it all" crowd and the "you can not do that" crowd. Nels will not do anything that he determines to be questionable legally with his site. Let him run it as he wishes and if you have a suggestion just email or PM him and save us all the effort of continuing to wade through all this trash ad infinitum!

[RANT OFF]

[Train-a-Mania]

Spud, for one thing, you're breaking the rule of "no foul language".

Second, these threads are not "useless" or "trash". It's important not to just accept status quo and look at ways to improve our community. I agree that redistribution without permission is a bad idea (even for "abandonware"), but that does not mean that the topic should not be discussed. Some of the best ideas out there come from community discussion.

[mestevet]

there will always be the "I want to use it all" crowd and the "you can not do that" crowd. save us all the effort of continuing to wade through all this trash ad infinitum!

You're missing one of the "crowds" - those who say "Don't even discuss it, it makes my head hurt/I don't like it/it makes me scroll down, I have carpal tunnel syndrome, and I hate clicking the mouse".

I agree with Nick.

None of which changes what I said originally - frustrating, but there's really nothing we can do about it, short of requiring uploaders to include ways to contact them if they disappear (which, in itself is extremely problematic).

Steve

[sniper297]

Well, I edited the post that got reported. One problem here is this is not an "adults only" website, and we can't really post a list of verboten words, you're just supposed to know which ones are not allowed. The standard is your kids, grandkids, nieces and nephews, or for the teenagers your younger brothers and sisters. For example my youngest granddaughter, age 5, sometimes logs in here to look at pictures and since she's learning how to read I don't want here saying "Papa, what does *%#&@$#! mean?"

As for copyright, I personally agree that restrictive EULAs on freeware are silly, however they ARE legally binding and the US copyright law does not recognize the concept of abandonware - google various abandonware websites and you'll find many of them have gotten permission from the current copyright holder to distribute games, many just went ahead and hosted them and were forced to remove the ones that the copyright holder cared enough to make a legal issue of.

As for our file library, Nels has addressed that issue;

https://www.trainsim.com/vbts/rules.htm

Note particularly the part that says;

In some cases, the owner of this site may be accountable. Thus, we will be conservative in our enforcement of these rules as required.

In other words, don't wanna deal with it, ain't gonna go there.

"A better solution would be to restrict contributions for this file library only to those providers who don't have a problem with it, make acceptance of that principle a condition of uploading."

Check the Auran Trainz "download station", when you upload something there, you automatically agree to allow Auran to distribute whatever you upload wherever they want - it's not a transfer of ownership, however by uploading you're agreeing to license Auran to include it as default content in future versions without compensation or even notification.

Backlash from that is the best freeware creators are reluctant to upload anything to the Auran download station, which results in a lot of "google the KUID" hunts for dependencies on obscure websites, some of which are gone after a few years. If our file library had that, we would end up with the same problem, people reluctant to upload. Which wouldn't bother me personally, I always said if you can't stand to see your baby abused keep it at home, but my opinion don't reflect the majority.

[Noisemaker]

I view it like 'sampling' in music, or 'likenesses' in art. I don't think one musician or artist has claimed 'they made that rythem track that sounds indentical to a old Police song' or Campbells didn't know how to label it's soup till Andy Warhol came along. 99.9% of the time respect is given where respect is due. Sometimes the music and images are blatant, sometimes they're chopped up, reversed, and smeared. And as well, sometimes the sampling and imagery can make for a bigger hit than the original - that's when the 'woe and beholds' come out of the woodwork. And more often than not - it's a forgettable dud, and none's the wiser. (Or richer.) Pretty well 'cyberspace' and the laws therein can be totally attributable to Abie Hoffman's 'Steal This Book'. Yes, we are the creators, users, and mofifiers here and elsewhere. But we're also the instigators, protaganists, and thieves as well. It's only ingrained christian beliefs and/or hereditary conscience that kick in to make us give credit or ask for permission beforehand. Some are more righteous and gullable that justice will prevail, some are just down right psychotic animals without any morals or scruples what so ever. Welcome to the jungle, baby. Not everything that goes onto the net will 'last forever' - just as every book, record, or painting will forever be in record stores, libraries, and art galleries. Because one find's a Miles Davis record at a flea market for 50c and creatively warps it into a bowl to serve chips in, is that any worse than sampling 4 bars and making a rap song over it? What happens if the chip bowl becomes successful, and the person buys en masse cheap records from flea markets and sells bowls thereafter for $15 a piece? Who cares who's names on the label or what music was on it beforehand? Should the artist and/or estates be compensated for that? Only the most gullable decent law-fearing christian is going to say 'yes' to that, while the rest of us laugh and shake our heads.
Does that make us 'bad people' then? To learn from, enhance, and progress ones contributions alive or dead in whatever way, shape or form for the future with respect and credit. Or simply just 'let sleeping dogs lay'?

I'm with you 100% Sniper297. You leave money on the counter, it's going to get stolen. You put money in the bank - you're never going to get the 'exact' bills and change back again the next day, Unless you put it in a safety deposit box, and that doesn't make anything in interest then for anyone. And that's all we're doing here to begin with - generate interest.