Copyright and Orbiter

[Urwumpe]

Don't forget the tiny detail that no orbiter add-on can be used without Orbiter...

 

[ex-orbinaut]

Paw! This has given me a headache before I am even properly awake...

The same goes for the snippets of the songs (analogous to using samples of one song in another, which is allowed in some jurisdictions but not others).

:lol:A pre-emptive barrage on one of my regiments here. I was going to get to the samples used in rap songs. Further, there are word perfect Spanish translations of "Hotel California" and "House of the Rising Sun", (among others) here. Very well done, but no permission from the Eagles or Animals, I am afraid, and no prosecutions.

"Inspiration" is different to copying. In the world of copyright law, you need to be able to demonstrate the originality of your work. As I understand it, album art is typically copyrighted as a work separate to the music itself. It is a "work" in its own right. I haven't seen the docs your are referring to, but if they are only a small part of your work then there is a chance they are OK.

Can translating word for word and still playing the song note for note, perhaps with a cursory blow on a pan-pipe here and there (if that), be considered inspiration?

EDIT:
Enjoy...

:rofl: Not strictly the Ecuadorian versions, though...

So there is a good chance we are "behaving safely" if we are "inspired". That leaves the logo of the group depicted on the vessel under a question mark. Different font? Translated initials? OLE, for example, for "Orquesta de Luz Electrica"? This is all a bit didactic, however. They were not bothered, as was explained earlier, and I pretty am confident there will be no problems with the OOTB ship or the ELO Shuttle.

Elite. As I see it, I think Oolite would have to be explained first, before putting me against the wall with a blindfold...

Cowboy Bebop Swordfish. The Japanese were the best people in the world for exact copies, oh yes, except for a left hand thread somewhere where there was a right hand... How will they like it back? . I'll do it dark purple as opposed to puce...

(Note: Oh, by the way, the craft in the Manga series "Planet Survival" is a rip off of the DG)...

Just need to know that add ons won't be deleted by OHM upon my uploading them, based on these or other arguments. I see the beginnings of a sad cracking down on upload content in progress, and if that is the case, some written guidelines must be produced detailing explicitly the copyright stand on things any time soon, or I wager a number of us are wasting our hobby time putting a lot of work into add ons from films and such (look at the requests threads).

There's a nice legal term... "Shadow of a Doubt"...

Many thanks.

PS. The article about the Aboriginal flag was somehow a bit amusing, don't know why. Copyright on a flag? Wonders grow... I thought violation of a flag was called WAR

---------- Post added at 09:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:30 AM ----------

...and there's another angle, too.

In films or series (or record labels), the vessels are just pretty shapes that the actors crawl into and act a scene. Features of the craft are sometimes not very realistic and serve only to aid the storyline, mostly (ref, a thread not long ago, which Star Trek technologies might be developed?).

As Orbiter developers, we give the craft some credence in the Orbiter physical world, which simulates the real Universe. Therefore we are only using the "shape". It is not like POH's and Performance Manuals are written by the movie maker for our reference to recreate the ship, legally or otherwise. So it IS our work, therefore the inspiration angle does most fully apply...

Any thoughts?

 

[combrown]

Originally Posted by tblaxland

Isn't it a little arrogant to assume what an artist/copyright holder wants from his work? I have heard arguments that they should appreciate the publicity, they want to prevent others from making money from their works, etc. If you want to publish something based on their works, just ask them. Legally and morally, they hold the exclusive rights to their works.


This is incorrect. All the copyright owner has to do is prove that a copyright infringement has occurred. For example, Australian copyright law protects certain "moral rights". Those can be infringed without any demonstrable loss occurring. Of course, any obligations between the two parties in the judgement will be strongly dependant upon the nature of the infringement.


Like what

:lol: You spoke of infringements I was asking for an example.
When you say certain moral rights I was curious as to what you meant.

And of course I am always happy to take the good with the bad, but I still like to have a choice instead of being told how I shall live.
Thats freedom.
Thats probably why things are the way they are these days.
People are just naturally going to exercise what they feel is best regardless of other parties interventions and opinions.
After all opinions don't always mean the truth.

With regards to movies, my opinion is that I like the fact that torrents are available to be able to preview them, then if I really like it I can go and see it in full quality or buy the DVD, Blue Ray release.

Or just be a naughty little girl like so many others and get a free good quality rip online.

Shame on me.


Thats just my opinions


---------- Post added at 07:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:48 AM ----------

We are "free" only to a certain extent, you depend from other and other depend from you, so you can only achieve ultimate and complete freeness by living alone in forest. (still you'd depend from forest)

Human are social animals highly specialised, each one of us have a role in society and all can live because exchange are fairs: One good for another, one work time for another. Else it's simply parasitism.

This is a natural law: "nothing come for free"

The humain exception is that we sustain the weak that cannot produce anymore (morale & social) while they would simply die in nature and we sustain also things that are not "vital" for our live as art, music, painting, writting etc.

Some say that our society are pervert, I see only natural law, money is only a way to make exchanges more efficient for the benefit of all.

Of course some things are not fairs, as in any big system there is loss and you cannot achieve 100% efficiency, now supress money and come back to exchange and the first one that would die are the weak because the efficiency rate would go down.



Much thanks mate

But DGIV only exist because honnest peoples have paid my stomac to make sharewares.

Dan

Yeh that certainly seems a very pinnacle part of much debate about todays western society.
Certainly makes you wonder where it could go.
Do we continue to improve efficiency and at what cost or does improving the effeiciency mean a benefit for all in general.

Good response.
I like it.:thumbup:

---------- Post added at 07:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:51 AM ----------

PS Sorry about the red, not sure why my browser did that, I was worried it may put emphasis on anger.

Far from it gentlemen.

 

[Linguofreak]

I see where that comes from. I still think it is a bit strange to have to give extra permission to include other libraries that are necessary to make the whole thing work at first. Linguofreak's "violation against yourself" is right on target IMHO.

Being that the GPL does allow such exceptions, it's probably good to put them in. I can imagine that even though it would only be a violation against oneself if such an exception were missing, it still might invalidate the license if somebody else violated it and you tried to enforce it.

Again, IANAL.

 

[tblaxland]

EDIT: Reading up on it a bit, the GPL is simply not clear enough what to do with dynamic linking and plugin-architectures. The LGPL is, of course. I'm still convinced that in courts here, the Orbiter/GPL-plugin case would be decided according to the non-viral "system-library" view.

Reviewing the definition of a "system library" in GPL v3, I believe you are correct. My apologies for any unnecessary confusion I have created :tiphat:

My use of LGPL for my addons means that the code in those addons may be used in other non-GPL libraries and applications, subject to the terms of the LGPL. The GPL does not give other authors such freedom. Author's choice of course.

Can translating word for word and still playing the song note for note, perhaps with a cursory blow on a pan-pipe here and there (if that), be considered inspiration?
[...]
As Orbiter developers, we give the craft some credence in the Orbiter physical world, which simulates the real Universe. Therefore we are only using the "shape". It is not like POH's and Performance Manuals are written by the movie maker for our reference to recreate the ship, legally or otherwise. So it IS our work, therefore the inspiration angle does most fully apply...

Any thoughts?

Whether or not there is an infringement depends on strongly on the nature of the work you have done and the copyright laws in your jurisdiction. Duchamp adding a moustache to the Mona Lisa is generally considered to be non-infringing. I highly recommend reading this article (warning, it is long): http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/Lhooq0.htm