News Orbiter copyright infringement?

[jangofett287]

Hang on, I've got the 2006p1 version hanging around somewhere, give me a few mins...

 

[jangofett287]

Here we go.
Got a screenshot, cropped it, coloured over the foot well like in the real one, attempted to get the hue closer (badly) and added the text. They've used a DG, now all we need to do is wait for the doc.

 

[deltawing777]

Here we go.
Got a screenshot, cropped it, coloured over the foot well like in the real one, attempted to get the hue closer (badly) and added the text. They've used a DG, now all we need to do is wait for the doc.
View attachment 7230

Nice work jango

 

[Notebook]

Very odd, I thought there would be great dungeon about this, I was deeply disturbed. Maybe I should get out more...

N.

 

[jangofett287]

Well, we've deployed the Ninja Space Lawyers™, so there's not a lot else we can do until the Doc. gets a look at this, but when he does, there may be hell, there may not. I'm not going to try predict this, I haven't been here long enough.

 

[Linguofreak]

If some company used the XR2 in its advertising (i.e. to promote its own product) without written permission first, it would be a license violation: they would be using the XR2 for a commercial purpose: to make money by promoting their own product.

Since the ad uses a default DG it will of course be up to Martin to decide what to do, if anything. However, as I read the Orbiter license terms this is a clear license violation:

Problem is, they might not even know what Orbiter is, let alone have read the license agreement. There's Orbiter imagery all over the web.

They may still be guilty of violating the copyright of the person who originally took the screenie, though, but even then, if the original is under something like a Creative Commons attribution license, the most we might be able to do is get them to credit the person who took the screenshot. It's dubious if Martin could take them to court for violating the license of a product they never used.

 

[fsci123]

I just came up with a sexy ideal:
Lets all sue these as for $210M and take equal shares so wecan have time to get better progamming to make better addons...

 

[dbeachy1]

Problem is, they might not even know what Orbiter is, let alone have read the license agreement. There's Orbiter imagery all over the web.

Ignorance of a law (in this case, copyright law) does not invalidate that law, however. It is also irrelevant how they obtained the Orbiter image: it is the commercial use of said Orbiter image that is in violation of the Orbiter license terms. Copyright law is not weakened just because the offending party ignores it or claims to be unaware of it. That's why any company worth its salt will perform due diligence before using any images they do not own.

 

[Keatah]

As time goes on we will be seeing more and more of these minor infringements. There's not a whole lot that can be done without crawling through a bunch of tape. And along the way you'll get a lot of shoulder shrugs and gaping huhhs.

Is it worth it?

 

[jedidia]

Ignorance of a law (in this case, copyright law) does not invalidate that law, however. It is also irrelevant how they obtained the Orbiter image: it is the commercial use of said Orbiter image that is in violation of the Orbiter license terms.

There's still a collision with the copyright law of images... Is every image taken from a product a part of this product? If so, public domain becomes meaningless.

Indeed, it could lead to outright criminal copyright laws. I can argue on a solid basis that this picture isn't a part of Orbiter, but was produced using orbiter. If I can lay claim to anything that is produced with my product, hell breaks loose. Microsoft would probably claim all code ever written using visual studio by right about tomorrow if it was a possibility. Let's not start with Adobe and AutoDesk.

Let's for a moment assume that the one making the add designed the cockpit himself and did a screengrab for his advertisement in Orbiter. How would this be any less part of orbiter? Wouldn't he be allowed to use that one either?

Copyright laws are twisted enough as they are. Let's try to be sensible here: Is Orbiter, the community, or dr. Schweiger damaged in any way? nope. Are any other people damaged by e.g. being misled to buy a product that is free, or buying something the advertisement tells them it's not? I think it's pretty safe to assume that noone will think he'll buy an orbitter add-on based on this advertisement, so, no. The only one that could claim damage is probably frying tiger, because his work was used by a lazy designer to make his own work easier, without mentioning or paying anything for it. Well, that's just the way public domain images work, I'm afraid. There's not even any kind malevolent intent or somesuch in play here, so I really don't see the big deal. Noone got hurt. If frying tiger feels hurt, he can take it up with the designer himself, but it is primarily his work that is used, not Orbiter. Seeing the abuse that is generally done with copyright laws by big companies, I really don't think we should do the same.

 

[Urwumpe]

Is Orbiter, the community, or dr. Schweiger damaged in any way?

The designer of the DG is damaged, because his artistic rights had been violated. You can't just apply the copyright law on crappy music and think you deserve millions if somebody doesn't want to pay for a crappy song in a youtube video. It also applies to the visual design of the DG.

The artist behind the ad actually pretends by not mentioning the source, that he made the whole graphic himself, but he just has a tiny contribution to it. He likely spend less work-hours making the ad, as it was needed to produce the VC mesh.

 

[Coolhand]

Problem is, they might not even know what Orbiter is, let alone have read the license agreement. There's Orbiter imagery all over the web.

They may still be guilty of violating the copyright of the person who originally took the screenie, though, but even then, if the original is under something like a Creative Commons attribution license, the most we might be able to do is get them to credit the person who took the screenshot. It's dubious if Martin could take them to court for violating the license of a product they never used.

Well lets put it this way, If it was the XR2, then in that case they're at least ripping off me personally, as i own the design, model, etc and thats really the extent of it that you could prove by use of an image so I would certainly be taking matters further - whether it came from renders or in a game.

As Doug said, you're meant to secure rights to use an image commercially - I know people who've had photos posted online which were used in mattes for movies for example, they'll find themselves contacted and offered compensation in advance.

And btw Doug, I saw that images of the XR2 were used in the orbiter store on a new T-shirt design - now, afaik, i was never asked if that was ok or even told about it - you will be hearing from my lawyer

And also, lets not forget the possibility that an agreement actually has been reached, its just that no one told anyone in here.

 

[jedidia]

The designer of the DG is damaged, because his artistic rights had been violated.

I think I mentioned that, as well as that it's up to him if he wants to do something about it, and not to the community, not even to the doctor.

You can't just apply the copyright law on crappy music and think you deserve millions if somebody doesn't want to pay for a crappy song in a youtube video. It also applies to the visual design of the DG.

Which is exactly my point. All of us get annoyed if that happens. But on the other hand, we cry wolf as soon as we see something we like apearing somewhere we don't like it apearing? It's a bit hypocritical. I don't like big companies getting all busy about copyright protection when there's no actual damage done and they just think they might get a few bucks out of it or "make an example" out of someone. I don't like it at all. In turn, I'm trying to not do the same.

 

[Viper1]

I had to research the "Fair Use Doctrine" because I'm planning to use some movie screen grabs for a project I'm working on.
The author of the advert would have saved himself a lot of trouble if he had just credited the author, or included "the fair use" phrase somewhere on the image.
Below is a link to the Fair Use Doctrine which I think is relevant in this case.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use[/ame]

 

[deltawing777]

If some company used the XR2 in its advertising (i.e. to promote its own product) without written permission first, it would be a license violation: they would be using the XR2 for a commercial purpose: to make money by promoting their own product.

Since the ad uses a default DG it will of course be up to Martin to decide what to do, if anything. However, as I read the Orbiter license terms this is a clear license violation:



Can't get any more cut-and-dry than that.

Why are we debating this? It is what it is. A violation of the law, period. And it is up to the author to decide, not us, what course of action to take if any. Damages or no damages. Like dbeachy said "Cut and Dry"

 

[dbeachy1]

And btw Doug, I saw that images of the XR2 were used in the orbiter store on a new T-shirt design - now, afaik, i was never asked if that was ok or even told about it - you will be hearing from my lawyer

:blink: That makes two of us. I did order a few XR2 shirts and mugs after I saw them, though.

 

[Notebook]

Hate to say this folks, just bought my May 2011 copy of Electronics World:

http://www.electronicsworld.co.uk/

There inside the back cover is the same advert.

Electronics World used to be called Wirelless World, 1/2 the price and twice as impentorable:
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_World"]Wireless World - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
N.

 

[Pyromaniac605]

From what I understand if you take an image of anything copyrighted you must make at least five changes to be able to use it commercially (at least that's what my INP teacher said), so lets have a look.
It's flipped around, it's tinted, Photoshopped picture out the window, text added, different things being shown on the screens, no buttons on the HUD thingy.

That's six right there.

 

[Hielor]

From what I understand if you take an image of anything copyrighted you must make at least five changes to be able to use it commercially (at least that's what my INP teacher said), so lets have a look.
It's flipped around, it's tinted, Photoshopped picture out the window, text added, different things being shown on the screens, no buttons on the HUD thingy.

That's six right there.

Okay no, it doesn't work like that.

I can't take an image and change six pixels and call it good.

 

[Viper1]

Okay no, it doesn't work like that.

I can't take an image and change six pixels and call it good.

Not pixels; a pixel would be about the size of the dot above the letter i or a period; you wouldnt even notice or see that. Five elements or areas of the image totalling 25% of the Image. But... you still have to quote the derived work. I previously posted the Fair Use Doctrine which is what applies in this case because money is being made from the use of the image.
As I stated before I had to research this issue because I'm using some screen grabs from a film and the resulting image is still part of the copyrighted work.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use"]Fair use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]