Board index FlightGear The FlightGear project

Questions about GPL license

Questions about the FlightGear organisation, website, wiki etc.

Re: Questions about GPL license

Postby Thorsten » Sun Jun 02, 2019 3:53 pm

It's the difference between an aggregation and a dependency or use and 'building upon' mentioned earlier. A collection of two FG aircraft has zero dependency between them, adding one folder to the other is not a creative act warranting copyright - that's an aggregation, which also can be separated, and the different pices can be licensed differently.

Adding a working cockpit to an FG aircraft is not an aggregation, because it makes no sense to distribute them separately, it is a creative act, it creates multiple dependencies both on the FDM and the 3d mesh levels.

This is why for a while I was arguing that it's possible that the individual ShareAlike items of content must be licensed under ShareAlike, but not your entire work.


If your 'work' is a mere aggregation that is true, but then it isn't really work because you're not adding anything which would grant you a share of copyright.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11212
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Questions about GPL license

Postby Lydiot » Sun Jun 02, 2019 4:08 pm

Thorsten wrote in Sun Jun 02, 2019 6:15 am:
I think the additional question of whether or not something is a derivative work is the key question, and Thorsten ignores that problem. If he had a good reason for why I was wrong in what I said before he would have refuted it rather than ignored it.


Right, the only reason that I don't answer to each and every argument in a page-long discussion is that I have no good answer...

I actually cited a text from the CC page that defines when something is a derivative work (called 'adaption' there) and commented on it before - how did you miss that?

So the reason I didn't answer is that I already had 8)


I didn't miss that at all, you commented on it, was wrong, I corrected you and you ignored that. That's what I'm talking about.

Your view of what constitutes "derivative" work and/or "adaptation" is simply wrong. That error of yours is what allows you to think of everything as stealing regardless of whether it's "small" or "big", when in fact the "size" and essence of use are actually in a sense connected, and point back to the very definition of "derivative" and/or "adaptation". A photo that is unrelated to the story in a movie and appears only briefly, unaltered, is not a derivative or adaptation of the photo - and that is directly related to how and how much it is used.

I don't see how you don't get that.

Quite frankly I think you're missing some nuance in the English language here.

An "adaptation" isn't just using something.
A "derivative" of something else is also not just using that other thing.


You're just wrong about this, and if you think you aren't, then the above is what you'd address. (and pointing to Wikipedia again won't cut it for what should be obvious reasons)

Thorsten wrote in Sun Jun 02, 2019 6:15 am:
And so if it can be legally determined that the "use" of something is so "little" that it isn't "derivative" then it is what it is, regardless of how you feel about that. You might feel that it's still stealing, but it isn't (in such a hypothetical case).


I think I was the first to bring up the 'fair use' example here, so I don't see how citing it back to me helps me understanding anything :D


'Smilie' all you want, we're not talking about "fair use" here. We were talking about something else.

Thorsten wrote in Sun Jun 02, 2019 6:15 am:As for 'stealing a little'.

If I license something, the license needs to be followed. The arguments made here frequently involved 'What if a really large project uses something really small?' - does that void the license terms (we've had the photograph in the presentation or the movie).

No, it does not void the license terms - it's still stealing.


No, you're mischaracterizing what the proposition is. It's not that the object being used is something really small, it's whether or not what is used has significant importance in the work. You can't adapt a novel into a movie without using significant parts of the story. And you can't create a derivative of an image without using significant parts of the image. Once you have no 'connection' of significance between the two it's neither adaptation nor derivation.

Obviously the license always matters, but if the license restricts usage by others by hinging upon the new work adapting or deriving from the "small" work, and it doesn't, then at the very least that part of the license no longer applies.

Thorsten wrote in Sun Jun 02, 2019 6:15 am:Not following the license terms, even for a half-second sound clip, is a copyright violation. That is black and white.


That's like saying breaking the law is committing a crime. Well, obviously!

Thorsten wrote in Sun Jun 02, 2019 6:15 am:(And yes, forcing a whole movie into a Share-Alike license for including a short sound clip would be a disproportionate punishment in my view as well - a proportional response would be an order to remove the material and a minor compensation - perhaps according to the current market value of a commercially available sound of the same length. However - that does not change my view that the movie crew should never deliberately ignore a license in the first place.).


I don't think anyone here is suggesting that anyone should ignore licenses. Isn't this thread the proof of exactly the opposite?

Just post some legal cases from the real world where someone has used 'share' licenses in a commercial project and the courts ruled on it. Just find some cases to back up what you say. I'm particularly interested to see;

* cases where the movie was forced into a different license (I bet that never happened)
* the actual use of the copyrighted material that was infringed upon, so we can see examples of "derivative" and/or "adaptation"


The ball's in your court.
Lydiot
 
Posts: 987
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:50 pm

Re: Questions about GPL license

Postby Lydiot » Sun Jun 02, 2019 4:14 pm

Thorsten wrote in Sun Jun 02, 2019 3:53 pm:It's the difference between an aggregation and a dependency or use and 'building upon' mentioned earlier. A collection of two FG aircraft has zero dependency between them, adding one folder to the other is not a creative act warranting copyright - that's an aggregation, which also can be separated, and the different pices can be licensed differently.

Adding a working cockpit to an FG aircraft is not an aggregation, because it makes no sense to distribute them separately, it is a creative act, it creates multiple dependencies both on the FDM and the 3d mesh levels.

This is why for a while I was arguing that it's possible that the individual ShareAlike items of content must be licensed under ShareAlike, but not your entire work.


If your 'work' is a mere aggregation that is true, but then it isn't really work because you're not adding anything which would grant you a share of copyright.


The above seems to make complete sense to me.

Now take the above and apply it to the photo that appears in the movie. If it's a photo of an apple pie in a movie about the making of a Ferrari and it has no significance to the story - is it more of an aggregation or is the photo a source of dependency???
Lydiot
 
Posts: 987
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:50 pm

Re: Questions about GPL license

Postby Thorsten » Sun Jun 02, 2019 4:28 pm

A photo that is unrelated to the story in a movie and appears only briefly, unaltered, is not a derivative or adaptation of the photo - and that is directly related to how and how much it is used.


WIth that logic, you could use whatever artwork (picture, sound,...) in your movie without ever worrying as long as it's brief and not related to the story.

Sorry to break that to you, but you can simply not. You're taking someone else's work, mixing in your creative work and make a movie of it - that's not an aggregation.

Unlike copying two folders into a zip file, movie-making is a creative act - which lifts the whole beyond an aggregation.

And sorry - no ball is in my court - if you believe you're safe with taking small bits because it's not stealing then, you go ahead. You're getting into trouble, not I - I have zero urge to conclusively prove that to you.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11212
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Questions about GPL license

Postby hans05 » Sun Jun 02, 2019 4:59 pm

I already posted something before this one, but that got censored (the short period of time when I was not censored felt really good :-))

So I try to throw something in that even Gijs will not consider putting oil on fire:

Thorsten, have you ever asked yourself what "to steal" means?
I am by no means expert on the English language but according to

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/steal

it means:

to take something without the permission or knowledge of the owner and keep it


You tend to exaggerate the level of criminal energy of violating IP rights by using the word "steal". It seems to me that it is not possible to steal a program, an FG-aircraft or even the digital copy of a film or picture.

Since it is not possible to steal such things, I believe that real experts (which I am not and somehow I start to feel that also you are not) do not say "steal" but rather

Intellectual property infringement

Mhhh, so why do you keep on saying "steal"?
hans05
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:25 pm

Re: Questions about GPL license

Postby Lydiot » Sun Jun 02, 2019 5:07 pm

Thorsten wrote in Sun Jun 02, 2019 4:28 pm:
A photo that is unrelated to the story in a movie and appears only briefly, unaltered, is not a derivative or adaptation of the photo - and that is directly related to how and how much it is used.


WIth that logic, you could use whatever artwork (picture, sound,...) in your movie without ever worrying as long as it's brief and not related to the story.

Sorry to break that to you, but you can simply not. You're taking someone else's work, mixing in your creative work and make a movie of it - that's not an aggregation.


Sorry to break it to you, but you're still not comprehending what "derivative" and "adaptive" means in the English language. Just look at what I highlighted above.

In the example you're NOT making a movie out of the photo. You're not altering the photo. You're not deriving anything from the photo. You're not adapting the photo. You're doing none of those things.

The term "aggregation" was yours, and your argument was one of dependency. By the very definition of the word "dependency" it stands to reason that if you take that photo out of the hypothetical movie and replace it with a photo of a banana instead the movie works just fine, and the photo still works on its own... that's what you seemed to call the essence of aggregation.

If there was a dependency then removing the photo would alter the movie in such a significant way it no longer had the same effect on the viewer. And if it was an adaptation then the movie would be based on the photo. Neither is true.

You're just wrong about this. Clearly you have a problem with the English language in terms that aren't purely technical, which doesn't surprise me at all.

Thorsten wrote in Sun Jun 02, 2019 4:28 pm:And sorry - no ball is in my court - if you believe you're safe with taking small bits because it's not stealing then, you go ahead. You're getting into trouble, not I - I have zero urge to conclusively prove that to you.


No, sorry, the ball totally IS in your court. If you want to convince people that your claim is true, then it's absolutely up to you to prove that.

I think it's telling that you keep repeating the very same thing yet don't provide a single real-life case study to prove it.

Weak.
Lydiot
 
Posts: 987
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:50 pm

Re: Questions about GPL license

Postby NewFlyer153 » Sun Jun 02, 2019 5:23 pm

@Thorstein But Thorstein, I thought you admitted more than once that though it might be stealing the decision might fall in the defendant's favor because the included copyrighted content was so insignificant to the production. You keep saying any use at all is theft (and you may be right), however to claim it's a license or copyright breach is less self-evident. Prima facie it may seem like a license violation, but when the decision is made the conclusion may be that exemption or exception applies. In that case it isn't copyright or license breach (at least in the end it isn't found to be), though it may still be behaving dishonestly or stealing.

Also on another note, I know it's not my responsibility, but there's this user on CGTrader https://www.cgtrader.com/stevomitric2000 who's selling a Leopard tank, which is also made available on Sketchfab for free under CC BY. The tanks have the same numbers on them and identical texture details in many places. Also I checked the wireframe and there's no doubt that these are the same tanks. The guy on Sketchfab was previously found to have uploaded a T-72 tank from the game ARMA 2 after I reported him, and only that model was removed, but the user wasn't banned.

I contacted the person selling the model on CGTrader asking if that was their tank, and they replied along the lines of "nope, they have different texture details." This person may have partially reskinned the tank, but it's still obviously clear they are the same tank with much the same textures. Instead of eliciting concern from this seller that his tank was being made free somewhere else, they simply brushed it off and said it wasn't the same tank (which it is). The likelihood is (this is my suspicion), that neither person has the right to this tank. They have both taken it, probably from some game, and made it available both free and for payment respectively. I don't really know what to do. I have have reached out to Sketchfab and CGTrader suggesting they investigate these matters, but really how can we know who holds the copyright?
NewFlyer153
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 9:29 pm

Re: Questions about GPL license

Postby hans05 » Sun Jun 02, 2019 5:25 pm

Oh, and another one.

I already wrote in some old post that I am pretty sure that some of the aircraft in FG have a design protection (one sort of IP).

Either because of this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent

or maybe this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unregistered_design_right

or this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industria ... pean_Union

or, on national level by something like this:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Designrecht

After I wrote that, Thorsten answered (if I remember correctly) that all of this is no valid for FG because FG is "art".
Yeah.....art!
And fortunately there is an exception for art (in the US).
Yippeeeeee, I am so glad that nobody here in FG is......."stealing".
hans05
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:25 pm

Re: Questions about GPL license

Postby NewFlyer153 » Sun Jun 02, 2019 5:33 pm

hans05 wrote in Sun Jun 02, 2019 4:59 pm:You tend to exaggerate the level of criminal energy of violating IP rights by using the word "steal". It seems to me that it is not possible to steal a program, an FG-aircraft or even the digital copy of a film or picture.

Since it is not possible to steal such things, I believe that real experts (which I am not and somehow I start to feel that also you are not) do not say "steal" but rather Intellectual property infringement


I have no problem calling it theft, we talk about copyright infringement being theft and stealing all the time, such as in piracy. So call it what you want, I don't have a problem with people calling it stealing. I think generally courts discourage the term "theft" because they want to distinguish it from physical property theft. But ordinary people and even legislators use these terms commonly. Analogously it's theft, and even literally it can be seen as theft. Depends how you like to use your words.
NewFlyer153
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 9:29 pm

Re: Questions about GPL license

Postby Thorsten » Sun Jun 02, 2019 5:36 pm

But Thorstein, I thought you admitted more than once that though it might be stealing the decision might fall in the defendant's favor because the included copyrighted content was so insignificant to the production. You keep saying any use at all is theft (and you may be right), however to claim it's a license or copyright breach is less self-evident


This is the same as saying taking chewing gum from a store is not really stealing because the value of the item is so insignificant to the revenue of the store it doesn't really matter (and you won't be seriously prosecuted anyway).

Well, let's say I don't buy into the argument - and so does the vast majority of the population, because despite the evident inability of any justice system to prosecute millions of instances of theft that'd be the result, it doesn't actually happen. Because most people know that you can't simply take things - not because you get caught and punished, but simply because it is intrinsically wrong.


Also on another note,


The world is not ideal, and I'm willing to bet 99% of minor copyright cases such as pictures 'just taken' never get anyone's attention (indeed, often people simply take popular songs for YouTube videos instead of properly licensed music).

So yeah - people most likely get away with it, and even if someone notices, most courts won't act if the value in question is just a few dollars...

I can't change that - all I can do is tell people that it's intrinsically wrong to ignore license provisions (or take chewing gum without paying).

@hans05 - please grind whatever axe you may have in another thread - this is about GPL and Share Alike licenses in case you missed the thread title :D It really seems odd that most of your contributions in this forum seem to be trying to fuel discussions into a flame war...
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11212
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Questions about GPL license

Postby Lydiot » Sun Jun 02, 2019 5:43 pm

Thorsten wrote in Sun Jun 02, 2019 5:36 pm:all I can do is tell people that it's intrinsically wrong to ignore license provisions


I didn't see anyone disagree with that, despite you implying that... again... "Red herring" as they say...
Lydiot
 
Posts: 987
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:50 pm

Re: Questions about GPL license

Postby Thorsten » Sun Jun 02, 2019 5:55 pm

I didn't see anyone disagree with that, despite you implying that... again... "Red herring" as they say...


*sigh*

If it's a photo of an apple pie in a movie about the making of a Ferrari and it has no significance to the story - is it more of an aggregation or is the photo a source of dependency???


Lydiot, I won't convince you of anything, so this is for anyone else reading this thread:

I take an FG aircraft, copy it into a folder where another aircraft is, package the whole thing. That's an aggregation. Copying into folders is not a creative work. It's easy to separate the aggregation. I can take any of the two aircraft out of the package, the rest is still working. I did not alter the content of any of the aircraft folder.

I take a Share-Alike licensed photo, it's on the wall of a picture in the movie. That's not an aggregation. Making a movie is a creative act. It involves filming, it involves video-post-processing (at which point the photo is of course altered with any video-filter that's run over the scene), it involves sound editing. I can not simply take the picture out of the movie again. I can not distribute a movie without the picture and the picture such that I install it and then it appears in the right place in the movie. So basically all the hallmarks are different.

The idea that the second case is an aggregation doesn't even merit discussion - it has none of the characteristics of an aggregation. Zero.

***

Gentlemen, I'm afraid I'm done here. I've given my explanations, cited my sources, but I see no reason to really convince you conclusively of anything. If you believe your interpretation of copyright and licensing is correct, this is your own risk - not mine.

I will state that as a committer to the FG repositories, I won't ever approve material on the grounds that it'd be insignificant and the license can be ignored, and you'll find that position is backed by other committers.

Have a pleasant evening, and if you're so inclined, enjoy your conviction of having defeated me in a debate I don't overly care about.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11212
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Questions about GPL license

Postby NewFlyer153 » Sun Jun 02, 2019 7:10 pm

@Thorstein You see this helicopter? https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/ah-1g-19a6b666b1a547d7a7053d3b4d09e913 I'm near certain it's ripped from War Thunder, a Gaijin Entertainment online game. I have the game and have checked them, and there's pretty much no doubt. The user has a number of models, tanks and ships and other helicopters that they're displaying. In many cases they don't mention that it's from War Thunder. Does this person even have the right to display it the way they have? You actually need a permission or license to display renders of copyrighted material, so I don't see how this is legal. Again, it's not my responsibility, but I can't stand this behaviour. As you say, right is right, and there is a law. I intend to report anyone who's abusing others' work. Though in this case, since they're not making any of it available for download I doubt the site will care much. I can contact the publishers, Gaijin and let them know.

By the way, Gaijin actually encourages people to rip their models from the content development kit, only for the purposes of skinning and mods. But displaying their material this way just seems illegal.

The effort really seems futile, but if everyone just does nothing then the bad guys have won.
NewFlyer153
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 9:29 pm

Re: Questions about GPL license

Postby Lydiot » Sun Jun 02, 2019 8:20 pm

Case-law; examples;



Thorsten wrote in Sun Jun 02, 2019 5:55 pm: I take a Share-Alike licensed photo, it's on the wall of a picture in the movie. That's not an aggregation. Making a movie is a creative act. It involves filming, it involves video-post-processing (at which point the photo is of course altered with any video-filter that's run over the scene), it involves sound editing. I can not simply take the picture out of the movie again. I can not distribute a movie without the picture and the picture such that I install it and then it appears in the right place in the movie. So basically all the hallmarks are different.

The idea that the second case is an aggregation doesn't even merit discussion - it has none of the characteristics of an aggregation. Zero.


You're stuck with literal technicalities, and that's not how art is viewed. You need to get your head out of that space and reconsider what the words mean in English. You're completely missing the point. It's not about retroactively taking the photo out of the movie, of course it isn't, it's about whether or not the photo could have been substituted with a different photo without changing the movie in any substantial way, that's the point. In that sense there either is or is not a dependency (on the photo). For the movie to be either a derivative work or adaptation of the photo the latter must be of significant relevance to the movie.

Color correcting and grading a film hardly qualifies as making the movie a derivative of the photo, nor does it make the movie an adaptation of the photo (Read that again: of the photo. THAT is key here. And you keep ignoring it because you are stuck not understanding the English language in this context).

If what you say was true then the movie "7even" would have been a clear case of the "theft" you're discussing, and that was not the finding:

https://openjurist.org/147/f3d/215/sandoval-v-new-line-cinema-corp

To clarify why the above legal case is relevant - if you were right that the new work is a derivative of the old (or "adaptation") simply because the old work has been treated during color work then New Line Cinema would by default have lost the case, but not only did they not lose the case, that very same argument worked in favor of New Line by essentially arguing that since the old work was not clearly depicted it didn't get infringed upon.

As for the notion that even just including a photo in the frame of a shot in a movie, and that the movie then is guilty of "theft" (or IP infringement) by default as a black/white matter, you can simply look at:

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1054870.html

Both of the above cases show you clearly that it's not a black/white issue, and that it's far less 'technical' than you make it out to be. Indeed the context in which the "photo" (etc) is shown is taken into account to figure out if infringement actually took place. That's where the "a little theft" of whatever it was called in this tread came from.
Lydiot
 
Posts: 987
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:50 pm

Re: Questions about GPL license

Postby NewFlyer153 » Sun Jun 02, 2019 8:52 pm

@Lydiot

To be fair, I think those cases ought to be viewed within a separate framework, because we're not just talking about general copyright law, but the ShareAlike component of the CC license. (I know, the title is GPL, that's my fault).

You're right about the de minimis doctrine with respect to copyright law:

Courts will occasionally not uphold a copyright on modified public domain material if the changes are deemed to be de minimis.[16] Similarly, courts have dismissed copyright infringement cases on the grounds that the alleged infringer's use of the copyrighted work (such as sampling) was so insignificant as to be de minimis.

From Wikipedia.

Who knows, maybe it's possible to violate a license and still not be found culpable of infringement. Get that? In other words, as a matter of semantics, I make a bunch of conditions when I license my work. You violate that license, so that's license violation right there (or what could be termed unfair gain or even theft), however the legal decision could be that I'm not culpable for copyright infringement, because a bunch of judges made a number of judicial balancing acts and ruled in the defendant's favor.

Maybe that's what Thorstein means about it being black and white, meaning that the violation of the conditions of a license may be the black and white letter of the license.

And in the case of the appellant's ten photographs used in the movie 7even, I wouldn't dismiss entirely that the producers made some unfair gain. Maybe the word "theft" is strong, but to many people it is, and I wouldn't just dismiss that notion. It does seem rather unfair if this appellant felt his property was violated and the film corporation decided not to compensate him even a little.

Edit: Oh they were self-portraits, not photos! Well, that's even more work the poor guy did..
NewFlyer153
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 9:29 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The FlightGear project

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest