Hmm Big Brother is here again messing with our lives. Please modders read this: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-other/c-exception/c-exception-research.htm Non-commercial research and private study You are allowed to take short extracts of works when the use is for research that you do not make any money from or for private study, for educational courses or even for use in connection with a hobby. Such use is only permitted when it is 'fair dealing' (discussed below). The purpose of this exception is to provide students and non-commercial researchers more access to copyright works. In assessing whether your use of the work is permitted or not you must assess if there is any financial impact on the copyright owner because of your use. Where the impact is not significant, the use may be acceptable. If your use is for non-commercial research you must ensure that the work you reproduce is supported by a sufficient acknowledgment. and this http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-other/c-exception/c-exception-review/c-exception-fairdealing.htm Fair dealing Certain exceptions only apply if the use of the work is a ‘fair dealing’. For example, the exceptions relating to research and private study, criticism or review, or news reporting. 'Fair dealing’ is a legal term used to establish whether a use of copyright material is lawful or whether it infringes copyright. There is no statutory definition of fair dealing - it will always be a matter of fact, degree and impression in each case. The question to be asked is: how would a fair-minded and honest person have dealt with the work? Factors that have been identified by the courts as relevant in determining whether a particular dealing with a work is fair include: Does using the work affect the market for the original work?* If a use of a work acts as a substitute for it, causing the owner to lose revenue, then it is not likely to be fair. Is the amount of the work taken reasonable and appropriate? Was it necessary to use the amount that was taken? Usually only part of a work may be used. The relative importance of any one factor will vary according to the case in hand and the type of dealing in question. and this http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-other/c-exception/c-exception-acknowledge.htm Sufficient acknowledgment In relation to certain exceptions, if you are making use of that exception to copy someone else's work it is necessary for you to sufficiently acknowledge their work. For example, where you have copied all or a substantial part of a work for the purposes of criticism or review, or where the use was for the purposes of news reporting. However such acknowledgment is not required where it is impossible for reasons of practicality. This is from UK's Intellectual Property Office, I really dont see how FIA can believe in a different god than common sense. *Is FIA selling sim games nowdays?
Thanks for sharing Nikos, hope it can be off help for all modders. ASR team, maybe you could ask ISI or URD? FIA making me sick........
My condolences to the ASR Modding Team... my heart bleeds. The day will come, where smart people simply nothing more do it... and the capitalism will die. Long live the revolution! Cheers!
This was posted by our former admin at SR4L " I bet if you look on your country site then it will read the same thing. This is from Canada The Copyright Act of Canada was first passed in 1921. Substantial amendments occurred in 1988 and 1997.[2] The defence of fair dealing was first introduced in the 1921 Act, duplicating section 2(1)(i) of the U.K. Copyright Act 1911. Since then, fair dealing has been amended by statute three times. First, by the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 1993, s. 64(1), and second by An Act to Amend the Copyright Act, 1997, s. 18. Most recently the Copyright Modernization Act, 2012 added the fair dealing purposes of education, parody and satire.[3] Fair dealing has traditionally been conceived of as a defence to copyright infringement. The plaintiff therefore has the burden of establishing infringement, after which the burden of proof rests upon the defendant to make out the defence. While the burden remains upon the defendant,[4] fair dealing is now considered a "user's right" rather than simply a defence, and should be interpreted liberally to accommodate freedom of expression as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: That was taken from. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing_in_Canadian_copyright_law exactly the same law with different name This is from USA Quote § 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40 Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. that was taken from. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 I do not think I need keep post it from every country."
the fact is this, it does not matter if we do this all for free, the real issue here is the fact to get the free product you must BUY or purchase rFactor2, basically the promotion is for rF2 not for the freeware we are sharing. So in the view of the FOM or FIA there are some monies being exchanged for goods.. Its a very difficult situation this...
I dont think that this has any relevance, RF2 is our hobby, we pay them to host us, after that there is no money exchanged.
I'm really sorry for you guys, you guys made so much and good work. I'm tired about all this sh*t from the FIA and all the mo**f** lawyers behind this situation. This is just greed from the FIA just in case some day some guy/company decide to sell a product with the 1992 F1 cars. What can I say? Should we have to stop watching F1 as a retaliation? We may write to the FIA letting they know that about our decision. I can do that, I can stop watching the stu**d actual F1. They are desperate to retain their public, so lets they know that we will change the channel to watch Indycar.
ouch! I am sure you guys will find a way around this mess. Please don't give up the fight For what it is worth, thank you very much for what you have already produced. I got to taste a FW14
I thought the issue was from FOM, possibly pushed by F1 and Codemasters. You could: 1- Alter all names and somewhat modify the textures (and you don't have to go on full accurate car shapes). FOM and the FIA can't claim any rights to audio, so engine sound captures should be perfectly fine. 2- Focus on years prior to the existence of FOM, which is what, 1982 and earlier?
less than that. they cant sue b/c a car youve created & are distributing represents another cars body. and i dont believe they care or would sue over audio samples. i only had an early beta as i was waiting for this to be finished/for the non-league cars to DL them, & the sound is mindblowing, no way it goes . its simply trademark BS & god knows how they even decided to pick on you guys. this is obviously nonsense & i hope it won't stop your work. i suggest simply doing what reiza does which pretty much just as said above, alter the textures & names. dont call it F1 & everythings fine. as i said on the AC board about this, perhaps a "shady modder" will appear with some skins for us...
Does the fia have the rights on the appearance of the cars? I am thinking skins? i hope you guys are able to release both rF2 & ac fast 1 series 92. i am sure we have enough talent around here to still achieve a grate result while respecting their property.
The same issue has hit the f1 2014 mod over on AC. Formula corsa who have been releasing the cars have changed logo's and some minor things to try and get around it and are planning to continue on. I cannot see how FOM can do this. My understanding is that they do not own the ip, copyright or trademark to the cars or the liveries, surely that would be a team thing? I would have thought that maybe official logos and modding teams with "F1" in their title would be the main issue. There isn't even an alternative to getting this 1992 season so why would they bother stopping this?! If a developer paid FOM for the rights to create this season then maybe it would be a bit more understandable but even then i would think its a stretch considering no one is gaining any commercial benefit from this. It would not paint FOM in a good light to sue hobbyists who create something and distribute for free when it does not financially affect them. Bizarre!
afaik only trademarks will have to be avoided by F1ASR. names & teams should be changed. but of course users can edit skins & names however they want.. it seems weird to me that somehow this mod, which ive really only seen discussed here, gets singled out by F1. of course it could just be random but it seems more likely someone 'reported' the team....that is toxic bs that has no place in the modding community & i hope f1asr dont let scare tactics & such nonsense put an end to their output.
And another thing, would this not also then apply for everything created my modders? All real cars with real liveries and all real tracks?
It might not actually be this mod that is singled out. Remember F1ASR were also developing a 2014 mod and they have "F1" in their name. This could be the reason as codemasters are releasing another lamo season update this year.
yes. it does apply but for obvious reasons no one other than porsche & F1 give a crap. those guys, or the companies who bought exclusivity rights (really dont know which, the latter seems far more likely but maybe the actual trademark owner has to complain legally) can be bloodhounds about this stuff. i think yr onto something about codies having an F1 title upcoming not being a coincidence here.
The mod was getting too popular and becoming a threat for someone. We can imagine who will that be. I hope, the mod will still be finished in some different form. Such a waste of potential this mod will be if not. Yeah in that world we live, once you become rich, the whole law/business system is work for you.
I'm completely baffled by this... in a lot of ways sim racing has entered some very dark times. It's insane imagining sim racing without new 3rd party F1 mods! I'm kinda lost for words... Sendt fra min LG-E400 med Tapatalk2
Lol so i just tried the Ferrari, find it an absolutelly amazing mod, so i came back to DL the rest of the cars and read this, did anybody get to DL all of it who could PM me with their links? FIA, what a way how to destroy passion people have towards F1, this is a free non commerical mod for people who love F1. Totally ridicious ASR: you did fantastic job on this and i feel sorry that you have put so much efford into this and they will cut it off for no good reason at all. This reminds me FIFA when they forbade Nico Rosberg having a picture of the FIFA cup on his helmet because the Cup design is copyrighted. This is retarded Just rename your mod and make it look like its an american version of it, and FIA can go and *** themselfs
