Search
Facebook-f Youtube Tiktok Discord

Razbam’s A-7 Corsair teaser video

We received the link from Ron Zambrano/Razbam with no comments whatsoever… we leave it to you to speculate in the commentaries about what he is up to 🙂

0 Responses

  3. Ahhh…I see. Folks that make airplanes get credit. Folks who make carriers and scenery don’t. Figures.

  6. Your statement was still a gross generalisation, though. Yes, in this instance, a video showcasing an aircraft developer’s aircraft doesn’t list the scenery the video producer has installed – however, it was showing off the aircraft, not objects seen in the background of some parts of the video.

    Personally, I’d have probably put them in out of politeness, but obviously they chose not to in this instance. Most video producers do, so your generalisation is still pretty unfair, Jim.

  8. Oh dear, another video with pirated music I guess! “This video contains Content from Sony Music Entertainment blah blah blah” When will video makers realise that it is against the copyright holder’s wishes to use their content in your movies. Even a Razbam isn’t immune to a (C) kill on their vids.

  9. That was all supposedly sorted out, with YouTube plastering adverts all over videos to sell the attached tracks to punters via iTunes after a massive public backlash when they started killing every video that had a music track which the uploader may not have had permission to use.

    One can but assume that iTunes doesn’t sell Fleetwood Mac. 😉

  10. I have just been shown this forum thread.

    Jim the video was removed after your copyright infringement complaint and I have emailed you with a formal apology.

    For the info of the other readers here… I am just an average FSX Joe who enjoys the hobby and I enjoy allowing my creativity flow and sharing it with others. I do not seek to offend, take advantage of or otherwise upset / anger. I am not foul mouthed, arrogant, or high on my own agenda. I appreciate all the hard work and efforts people donate to make the flightsim hobby what it is and my videos are something of a compliment if not hero worship to those who have.

    This video was not made to offend, corrupt or otherwise perturb anyone. I make it clear that I am in no way connected to RAZBAM other than being a friend of the owner, the video was created out of admiration, friendship and nothing else. I have often made videos celebrating releases or upcoming releases; the likes of Alpha Simulations, Piglet (freeware dev) et al.

    As IanP so rightly pointed out that YouTube has covered it’s backside and rightly so. For your enlightenment Eagleskinner the music was not pirated, it was paid for, as it was paid for with my own funds I will do with it what ever I feel short of making it available for download or selling it and should anyone owning copyrights pertaining etc then it is for them to bring forth should they wish to.

    In regards to credits I ran out of space on the title and I was out of time, I would have been over the magic YouTube 10 mins. Normally I credit everyone and their dog on my videos, I regret not being able to do so this time around.

    Again, my apologies to all of you I have seemingly offended and I am trully sorry that you cannot see the base compliment made to a set of terrific dev’s even if I wasn’t able to credit them.

  11. Checksix:

    There’s nothing personal at all in the takedown notice. Here’s where everything went egg-shaped: When Ron posted the video (or link to the video) on SOH and called it a “Promo Video” the video became (Legally) an advertisement, a commercial if you will. I viewed it here for the first time and expressed my displeasure at the lack of credit and was promptly called unfair by another user.

    I emailed Ron (through SOH) about my displeasure. I emailed Francois about my displeasure. I couldn’t find any contact info on the Vampyres. No one answered my emails.

    Since Ron turned your video into a commercial to promote his upcoming release, it ran afoul of my “No commercial use” caveat in my copyright notice.

    Here it is reproduced from the readme:

    ///////Legal Stuff///////

    All original material is copyrighted by the original authors and may not be used without permission. No decompiling, reverse engineering or other method of infringement is authorized.

    This software is not freeware. Further distribution requires permission of the author.

    No commercial use is allowed without author’s permission.

    This software is distributed without warranty of any kind either expressed or implied. The author is not responsible for any damage caused by this software.

    You Tube was not covering themselves, they recognized the infringement.

    Since I got no responses other than the negative one here, I acted to preserve my rights as the intelectual property owner.

    If you would like to converse further on this subject, please email me. My address is in every readme in all my scenery packages.

    Jim

  12. Oho… I stand corrected – and apologise in all sincerity. I suppose what worries me most is that I don’t get to see the previews. 🙁 And there are a lot of “official” films on youtube I’d like to see.

    Fleetwood Mac eh? That would have made a great flying demo soundtrack, whatever the title…

  13. Hi Jim,

    I emailed you last night before I was shown this forum and as I stated there I do apologise most sincerely and genuinely there was no offence meant.

    Thank you all for replying to my post here.

    CheckSix.

  16. @Jim: I am no longer with simFlight, so haven’t read, nor reacted to all this 😉

    Francois

  17. And, Jim, had you originally posted with your (valid) real complaint and identifying yourself as more than just a first name, it could have been sorted even quicker. I was talking to both Ron and Miguel while you were posting one line, utterly meaningless, comments.

    Just a polite reminder something you might like to think about in the future.

    You weren’t called unfair, you were pulled up for posting meaningless and directionless comments. I actually said that I agreed with you.

    Have a nice day. 🙂

  18. Jim, I just downloaded your NAS fallon scenery from simviation.com. After installing it, I noticed that you used photoreal ground textures.

    There is no credit in your readme file for the photos you used to make the scenery. Did you take the photo(s) yourself or did you just use someone else’s property and then not give them credit?

    Just asking.

  19. The data is USGS. It is in the public domain. I guess I should take it down so it doesn’t offend sensibilities.

  20. I would certainly recommend you not use it if you have a problem with it.

  21. Jim, I was just asking you a question and you answered it. You could have given a credit to USGS for the photos you used, but you chose otherwise.

  22. If I used someone else’s intellectual property without their permission…say a payware aircraft, I’d be called a pirate and worse. Quite simply the copyright laws are no different for payware and not-for-profit work. I will not accept villification for excercising my rights as an intellectual property owner.

    http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?t=38535

  23. Jim,

    I think it’s time to take a bit of a step back here. As I said before, and as I think Bob H is alluding to with his comments, your original posts were not about the problem you had with this specific video and why.

    CheckSix has publicly and privately apologised. Any actions that you and he take away from this site are entirely between yourselves. If you had originally come out and said “hey, that’s in breach of my license”, you’d have got a lot different response than you did from me. In particular, I’d have asked for this article to be unpublished directly to simFlight management.

    However, there are two entirely different topics here – one is “video publishers never credit scenery designers” which is what your original post said and is not always true. The second is that you had a specific reason to complain about this video. I, certainly, can’t argue with your position on that.

  24. Thank you for your last comment, Ian P. My question to Jim was to determine if he used someone else’s work product and then not give any credit in his documentation to that organization. He did not give a credit to USGS.

    Jim said he got the aerial photo from the USGS and I accept that although I could not find it there myself.

    I wanted to see if I could find the photo that he used in the scenery elsewhere and did some research.

    It turned up in 3 places(there may be more):

    MSN Virtual Earth
    MSN Virtual Earth tile server (using SBuilderX for import)
    NASA World Wind

    How could I determine that their photos were the exact ones Jim used?

    It was by careful examination of the cars in the parking lots – their colors and their parking spot locations were identical to Jim’s photos.

    Well, enough already. Jim, why not be a gentleman, accept Checksix’s sincere apology, write to UTube and ask them to restore his account?

  25. Bob,

    That’s awfully close to libel.

    Here is a sample if the metadatd from usgs for the KNFL ortho image from USGS. I generally save all my source datra so when questions come up, I’ll have them to answer unfounded attacks.

    ?xml version=”1.0″ encoding=”ISO-8859-1″?>USDA-FSA-APFO Aerial Photography Field OfficeU.S. Geological Survey20070208National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) Orthoimagery for Zone 11 Nevada State Quarter Quadrangle GRIMES POINT, NW and I.D. # n_3911835_nw_11_1_20060812.tifremote-sensing imageNational Agriculture Imagery Program1.0Salt Lake City, UtahUSDA_FSA_APFO Aerial Photography Field Officehttp://seamless.usgs.govThis data set contains imagery from the National AgriculturalImagery Program (NAIP). NAIP acquires digital ortho imageryduring the agricultural growing seasons in the continental U.S..A primary goal of the NAIP program is to enable availabilty ofortho imagery within a year of acquisition. NAIP provides twomain products: 1 meter ground sample distance (GSD) orthoimagery rectified to a horizontal accuracy of within +/- 5meters of reference digital ortho quarter quads (DOQQS) fromthe National Digital Ortho Program (NDOP); and, 2 meter GSDortho imagery rectified to within +/- 10 meters of referenceDOQQs. The tiling format of NAIP imagery is based on a 3.75'x 3.75' quarter quadrangle with a 360 meter buffer on all foursides. NAIP quarter quads are rectified to the UTM coordinatesystem NAD83. NAIP imagery can obtain as much as 10% cloudcover per tile.The 1 meter GSD NAIP is intended as a source for currentdigital ortho imagery in USDA Field Service CenterGIS and for other uses that require ortho imageryacquired during the agricultural growing season.The data obtained through The National Map Seamless Server is considered to be the "best available" data from USGS. Historical data and other data may be obtained by contacting Customer Services, Center for Earth Resources Observation & Science, at 1-800-252-4547. Abstract, Purpose, Data Quality Information, initial Processing Steps, Accuracy Reports, and source information are taken directly from the original metadata.Spatial-specific information not available20060812Ground ConditionCompleteIrregular-118.72606834-118.6757155539.4483521539.39872213NonefarmingDigital Georectified ImageGeorectified

    Nuff said.

    Jim

  26. By the way,

    After having a polite email conversation with the poster of the video, I offered to sign off on a putback notice. He declined. All you’re doing now is digging a bigger hole.

    Jim

  27. @Checksix. Your understanding of copyright law leaves much to be desired.
    Authorised use has nothing to do with the acquisition method, only the use to which the copyright materiel is put. I’ve spent many a long year dealing with copyright issues and your video – which I did see before it was taken down – did not fit `fair use` or `reporting` criterion, so I’d be interested to learn under what section of copyright law you thought it would be acceptable to use an artists music without prior, written consent, just because you bought it… the broadcast/narrowcast rights remain at all times with the copyright holder.

    As for Jim, he has a point. But the information referred to above specifically relates to information for which `partnership` – or a license – is required to use. So Jim, do you have such an agreement? It is not clear from your statements.

Toggle Dark Mode