Our community is planning a charity art show for the ACS. I had planned to sell some of my artwork in the show. The money will all go to the ACS and that brings up my question. If you use a prop that is for non commerical use, is it considered commerical when the artwork is for charity? I am not going to be making money off this and as I have said all money will go to the ACS.

But there will be money transfered correct? Then I think it becomes commercial....could be wrong but I think it is? Sharen

Just a thought, and it would be a True pain in the tush to do this... But... Could you contact the Artists who created any textures or porps that have the Non-Commercial Use clause. And see if they would give you a written Waver for the Charity Event? Just a thought, maybe we can get Jenny in here to confirm if Charity would indeed be considered Commercial. ladynimue

I would think if I was keeping the money then yes it would be commerical. But since the money is going to the ACS I don't see how that would be considered commerical. I maybe wrong.

Wishfull thinking Butch . Its still commerical since some one is paying money or goods for it. Thats the problum with useing freebies. I have contacted prop makers with non commerical clauses and 80% were happy to give me the rights to use them.

Commercial isn't in the changing of money, but in the purpose of the image. If the purpose of the image is to entice people to an action that would, hopefully, lead to the exchange of goods or services, then the artwork is commercial and you are suppose to compensate the artist, or at least obtain the proper license for the project. So, in the case of the artwork for charity auction, then absolutely the purpose of placing the artwork in the auction is a call to exchange goods, the artwork for money. In the case of the Band posters, the call is to exchange money for the band's CD (which may or may not use the same artwork on the cover) or to attend a bands concert. In either case, the purpose of the artwork is commercial. If you have a peice of your artwork hanging in a building (which you gave for free or otherwise hung there, perhaps because you own the building) and it is there incidentally (or even intentionally) as "atmosphere" at an event where the event is commercial, but your artwork is incidental to the event, then your artwork is not commercial. However, if someone asks about the peice, recieves your name, and then requests a piece on commision, the work just became commercial. That's why you should use royalty free props as much as possible. Once you've gotten the rights to the peice, the issue is simply academic.

The only way to be certain is to contact the authors of the items. More often than not I'd anticipate that they'd give their permission for charity use.

In the case of the Band posters, the call is to exchange money for the band's CD (which may or may not use the same artwork on the cover) or to attend a bands concert. In either case, the purpose of the artwork is commercial. Unless it's a free concert. While most free concerts have some side way of making money off the deal, it reaches a secondhand point which doesn't legaly affect it. For instance, just because someone sells beer and T-shirts abnd CDs at a free concert doesn't make the advertising for the concert commercial (though the concert itself could be considered commercial if the sole purpose is to sell beer, like a beer-conpany sponsored concert -- it just doesn't propagate) However, the important thing is what the creator thought when they made the prop or whatever. Some creators think commercial art would indeed apply to anything that advertises at all, yet not think that it would be commercial in a work of art for art's sake that would be sold at auction because the item isn't being used to make an ad. The important part is the creator's own definition of commercial use, not ours. If the creator doesn't think it's commercial, he or she won't come after you. (To be honest, most won't anyway but it's immoral to take advantage of them simply because they cannot afford to pursue litigation.) If the creator does think it's commercial and can afford to come after you, then you're dealing with a lawsuit whether you have a guaranteed win or not, and you have to ask yourself if it's worth your time. Since I'm only me, I can only speak for myself and my wife (who agrees with me generally). My stuff is free for any use. I don't care what you use it for. I'd like to see a copy of the finished art, but it's not a clause of the licence. Some of my things are listed for non-commercial use only on Renderosity's page, but if you read the README files (you do don't you?), you'll see that the only restriction on commercial use is that I disavow any responsibility if some company like LucasArts sues your pants off, and that you agree to hold me harmless for such. My wife, Audrey, has a page of tattoo flash in Free Stuff that you can copy-paste onto a texture for a poser figure. She has a sort of weird licence restriction (but it makes sense) -- the idea is that you can use these on Poser figures all you like, but you cannot a) reproduce it in a way that someone else could use it without the original (thus no close-ups of a tattoo applied to pale skin, for instance), and that you cannot use it for RL tattoos or claim rights to the inmage itself. Why? While she thinks it's fine to see it on Victoria and Mike, if she ever gets a gun and becomes a tattoo artist, she wants sole rights to her own flash until suich time as she deems fit to sell it as flash. if someone asks about the peice, recieves your name, and then requests a piece on commision, the work just became commercial. Perhaps philosophically, but not legally or realistically.

If it's being sold, regardless of where the money is going, it's commercial.

Alot to think about. I realized that my views may not be the correct ones or even jive with the major, but to me, commerical means that the money goes into your pocket. Charity means the money never hits your pocket, it goes straight to the charity in this case ACS. Our Relay for Life is kind of unique in that over 98% of our needs are donated by the community. We pride our selves in that all, ALL of the money raised by us goes to the ACS. I want to thank everyone for their opinions and their help. But I think that this has become a dead issue. Not because of anything said here today but because I have gotten several phones calls this morning and it looks like I am going to be too darn busy to do any serious artwork in the near future. We seem to be gearing up a lot faster this year than in our previous two years. Again thank you and please support the Relay for Life in you town or area. It really is a great cause...

You should contact the artist that you used their props. Most artist won't have a problem giving you permission and then you'd know your safe without any doubts. Copyright issues are often fuzzy areas that can usually be cleared up with permission from the original artist. The term "non-commerical" is better defined by calling it "personal use". The moment it's given to someone else it's considered illegal distribution and when it's used in any form to make money (whether you keep the funds or give to a charity) it's a copyright violation.

Thanks so much Jenifer,

As you work with copyright issues and are Renderosity's offical Copyright and Fraud Agent, we truly appreciate you taking the time to post to this thread :)

ladynimue

Folks seem to be confusing the concept of "commerce" with "profit". Profit is not required for commerce to exist.

What about the fact that charities are considered nonprofit. If no one profits from it and the money goes to a good cause, would it still be considered commercial? It never hurts to ask the people who created the objects in question, but I have to wonder what kind of Scrooge would withhold the use for a fund raiser for a good cause. Melanie

"I have to wonder what kind of Scrooge ..." Now don't be too hasty. It may not always be that simplistic. May I pose just one type of example you may not have considered. (Ignore the "values" issues below, other than noting that the two organizations are in opposition and that "good cause" is always an individual value call.) Consider that the author of a morphing fetus figure posts it in FreeStuff with a Non-Commercial restriction. An agency art director saw it and is negotiating to aquire its exclusive commercial rights for a non-profit Right to Life group for use in their new logo design. Suddenly, without the authors permission, it shows up as a featured figure in donated artwork being used in literature for a non-profit Pro-Choice group. All non-profit, all commercial uses, and "good cause" is a moving target.

At the extreme, I have seen it argued that any image posted at Renderosity is commercial, because it increases the market value of the artist. Even if the artist is purely an amateur, he/she MIGHT turn professional one day, and then what they could charge for work would be increased because of their reputation established by publicising previous pictures. The whole area is a mess, and frankly, I don't think it's worth losing much sleep over, as the chances of anything coming to court are slim. Consider this: I make a picture for my own pleasure, using someone's "personal use" prop, and give the picture to Fred. Fred shows it to his boss, who says, "Great, we can make an advertisement out of that." The prop creator has no call against anyone. I used the prop for my own personal use, and I'm not responsible for what Fred or his boss does. Boss didn't use the prop, only my picture. Once the picture is rendered, the copyright is 100% mine. If boss person uses it for an advert, it offends aganst my copyright of the image, and that's all. If I waive my copyright, which I'm quite entitled to do, the picture can be used without any legal impediment.

"Once the picture is rendered, the copyright is 100% mine."

Well, I think you are mistaken on that point, but please explain. Why would your act of rendering a piece, which incorporates another author's copyrighted work, have any impact on the other author's right to control the commercial use of his original work?

In your example above, I believe your render would be considered a derivative work with regard to original authors copyright.

No, because the original author of a prop has copyright over the mesh, and that's all. I can't distribute the mesh without infringing their copyright. But my pictures are all mine. This has been discussed before, and I think the issue is clear. Anything else would be unworkable. It would be impossible to be a professional photographer if every time you took a photo you had to consult the owner of every building whether they consented. A Poser render is to the meshes what a photo is to its subjects. The only exception would be if a picture infringed a registered trademark. You can compare, if you like, the current lawsuit over picture of Zeta-Jones's wedding. The issue is invasion of privacy, not copyright of the photos.

"the original author of a prop has copyright over the mesh..."

...and no one else has any right to use this copyrighted mesh in their own work without the author's permission.

If he so chooses, the author may grant you the "limited" right to use his original work in your renders including any kind of restrictions he wishes to impose. These terms would comprise a binding agreement like any contract. If you do not agree to the author's terms, regardless of how silly you may consider them, then the right to use the author's copyrighted work is not conveyed to you. His work, his terms, his call, never the end user's.

As your new work would be a derivative of his original work, any subsequent use of your copyrighted image would be bound by the terms of the original agreement. No?

No. My finished render is no more derivative of the prop than my painting is a derivative of the paint. Nor is there actually any binding agreement that I have with the prop maker any more than I have a contract with the company that makes my paints, just by the fact of my using them. A lot of people would like it to be so, but it's untested whether it would really wash in court. In any case, in the example I gave, there is certainly no agreement between the boss person and the prop maker, and I am no way responsible for what boss person does.

Ok-ok-I-give'. One of us (or perhaps both) is clearly way off base and a little too darn proud of it for this to get anywhere twixt us. ;-) I would be interested to see if anyone else picks it up with the question above though.

No, a render is not a derivative of the mesh. If I take a gown, for example, and chop off the arms, then my resulting dress is a derivation of the original gown. It contains parts of the mesh geometry, so it is derived from the original mesh. Someone else can use the new mesh as a replacement to having the original mesh with almost the same functionality. (It's sleeveless, but otherwise the same mesh.) Even if I take the mesh and add things like buttons and sleeves, a portion of the mesh is still taken from the gown, therefore, it is a derivative. A render does not contain the mesh geometry. It is an image of the mesh, but does not contain any pieces of the mesh. If a person got a hold of your image, they can't really use it to replace the functionality of the original mesh. It's like software - you can not take parts of the code to use in other programs, but the results of the code is your own. You can't take portions of MS Word and create your own word processing program, but any manuals, stories, etc. that you write using the software is your own. You are licensed to use the software (or mesh) but can not redistribute any part of the software (or mesh.) Hope this helps.

However, I have seen a few Readme's that actually state that the prop (or hair or dress or whatever) may not be used in any commerical renders. I have to respect their right to do that, even if I don't agree with it. I find it easier just to ask. I've asked at least three people to use an item in a commerical render and all of them kindly said yes. I think it's better to ask. I don't have my freebies up at the moment, but when I did, I gave free use for commercial and personal renders without them having to ask. Melanie

I can't believe I'm getting into another one of these. I would like to suggest for debate that a render is a display/presentation of the copyrighted work, and under copyright law the copyright holder has the right to control this, except where covered under fair use (for reviews of the work or education about the work, etc.) So, to clarify, Bob would have a say in whether his mesh was used in a piece of art, but could not stop a render used for "How I think Bob made this mesh" or "The flaws of Bob's mesh". Copyright is very complicated. Not even the lawyers understand it all. If you want to cover your hinder, ask permission or ask a lawyer or use something else.