Whenever I see threads like the recent ones on PSP tubes, I often wonder how many of the people posting can put their hand on their heart and say that they've never taped a friend's CD or downloaded a bootleg .mp3 file. Abusing the copyright of music is much the same as abusing the copyright of visual arts (with some distinctions and variations), but here, we as a community are aghast at people making pictures into PSP tubes because it's OUR copyright that's being abused, and more relaxed about what happens to music because that's someone else's copyright, and hey, everyone does it/it doesn't do any harm/it's only for study/what's your excuse? So when I see, as recently, pictures with copyright notices stamped right across them, I think of the recording industry's attempts to make the uncopyable CD, and it seems to me to be part of the same phenomenon. The reason I bother to post this is not to try and annoy anyone, but to try and indicate the state of mind of the tubists. Trying to get them to stop tubing is like trying to get people to stop taping music. If you're not a musician you don't feel too strongly about the latter, and if you're not an artist you don't feel too strongly about the former. Both are wrong, but very difficult to stop, if not impossible.

What's a 'PSP tube'? (Sorry if this is like a really lame "where have you been" type question)

asp, it's a means where you can import a texture and apply it as though painting on an image. The original concept is a good one, but it leaves itself open to becoming, as we see here, a virtual photocopy machine. But Phan makes a good point: do we only care when it hits this close to home? I mean, I was on the DAZ store site and noticed that the 2003 EU roadster uses BMW logos, and there's a Harley in the Loft. Maybe BMW doesn't care; maybe they don't know -- but it would sure be helpful if DAZ (and others who appropriate things like this) would make a public statement about whether or not they have the rights to use these visuals (which would have to be nothing more than a small note on the product page about "BMW logo used by permission of ______________", just like other companies do when using licensed materials). I'd feel a lot better about buying the model if I knew.

I've recently joined a few of the groups that are suspect to see what kind of media is being traded. The following quote is by one of the members of the group (no name added to protect the guilty), and is a perfect example of what is happening. It might be one thing if these were used for personal use only, but unfortunately that is not the case... ------------------------------------------------------ "I know everyone is really tired of hearing about the copy-right bs. I just thought I would add my 2 cents since I do side work for a licensing company. Yes, there are copyright laws and should we be distributing licensed material, no. But, the company I do work for is the licenser for some big name companies and I've seen some of there things on other websites and groups, but I can tell you right off the bat, most big companies are not interested in the little man/woman (no offense please), they are looking for those who are making big money off of their product. If someone is not comfortable with what they see being exchanged on this or any other group, they should just remove themselves without making a big commotion about it. It is as easy as that. I personalize wrappers. I know the laws, but there are times when I have a customer who wants a licensed character. I'm not going to give up that sale. I'm not making any major money off it either. If a company comes after me, hey, I don't have much for them to get. It really isn't worth it in legal fees alone to come after me. I do send in letters requesting permission and from many I have been told to pay a licensing agreement of $2500. Not worth it. I have also been told okay at no charge, but was told I could not put it on my website as a sample. No matter what an attorney tells you, if it is not from the companies attorney, then it is not a problem. I'm sorry for going on and on about this, but at this point I think this person has gone quite overboard about it." -----------------------------------------------

Bluespadawan - That guy's statement isn't true. For example DC and Time Warner as well as Disney are adamant about protecting their material and characters. Disney at one point sued an orphanage in Hawaii because they painted a picture of Mickey Mouse on the outside of their building play yard. If a company does not activily persue protecting its intellectual property then the court may let others use that property without litigation or fees. Another example was a book written about the OJ Simpson trial but done in a Cat in the Hat style dialog. The Dr. Suess organization sued them for using this style and won. The excuse that just cause someone has come after you yet doesn't mean they won't is a logically flawed. Also being a small fry doesn't help. Eidos and the studio doing the two movies sued an erotic art pay site for misuse of their Lara Croft character. Don't be fooled by thinking if you're small you can do whatever you want with any character you want. That isn't going to protect you.

I think Disney's deal is if you do it without permission. I know someone who cuts out stand-up Disney characters and paints them freehand. She obtained permission from Disney to make them and even sell some providing she doesn't make over a certain amount of $. Her yard even made the front page of her local paper.

The problem with images being distributed over the internet is the sheer numbers of people who will have access to them. In my time on the net, I've downloaded 1 mp3 and felt guilty enough to buy the damn cd. But one person copying a cd is very different than mass producing the cd and passing it out.

I would equate the copying of a cd to putting someone else's graphic work on your desktop and the sharing of graphic images via tubes and such to mass producing a cd and passing it to everyone you know. It's pretty obvious no one is qualified to "cast the first stone" but the more education that gets spread around the better eh?

If I could ask, why would you want to "protect the guilty"? I think if enough folks are willing to steal they should be willing to take the heat. And it isn't true that they don't go after the little guy. If they decide to make an example of you it is worth the money to them to show that they may just pick you or some other "little guy" next. BluesPadawan I wouldn't take what this person says to be true anyway, he/she is a thief. Marque

And as far as I see it the music companies ARE complaining so the artists here have EVERY RIGHT to be upset when they see their stuff stolen. Phantast, don't try to confuse the issue, if they want to complain I'm not going to fault them for it. You want them to say, well..it happens so I'll just roll over and let them have my hard work. I say go after them, embarrass them, call the isp's and don't stop until they do. They are hoping that folks will just give up and let them alone if they are persistant enough. Nothing worse than a smug thief. Marque

I was on the DAZ store site and noticed that the 2003 EU roadster uses BMW logos, and there's a Harley in the Loft Neither BMW nor Harley Davidson have registered trademarks on 3D models or poser content of any sort. Since DAZ first distributed with those logos, DAZ has the unregistered trademark on those names for 3D models and Poser content. As a note, the design of the Beemer is also fair game, as it's not copyrightable since it's a design for a functional device -- it's look is covered under Artistic/Design Patent. That means that something that isn't a car that looks like their car can be made. Most of these companies grab up model kits, toys, and stuff like paperweights immediately, but none of them seem to even be aware our industry exists. So shh. You guys gotta read up on the difference between Copyright, Patent, and Trademark.

Seems like there's a big under-current attitude of "it's okay for just us little-people". And definitely I'd say they feel like they're not really going to get in any trouble for it, so therefore "it's okay". That right there I'd say is the problem for anyone who wants to stop this activity. It seems that there's not much can be done that isn't a lot of effort on the part of the person trying to put a stop to it. Time and effort spent pursuing it ends up being far greater than the end result. Thus, the "big companies" only go after the "big violators making money at it". Ergo, it's "okay for us little people". Sorry to go philosophical here, but it ultimately comes down to a social issue. In our society is an attitude of 'it's okay if you don't get caught'. That, and respect for others and their belongings is way, way down. Until that changes - at a societal level - we're stuck with this issue.

we exhausted this subject in the last postings......

"Neither BMW nor Harley Davidson have registered trademarks on 3D models or poser content of any sort. Since DAZ first distributed with those logos, DAZ has the unregistered trademark on those names for 3D models and Poser content." That's incorrect, BMW trademarks their logo, they maintain that trademark no matter what the logo is placed on, be it a car, sign, or 3d model.

Attached Link: http://www.rightsforartists.com

Mason - I happen to agree with you. The quote that I added was just a sample of the rhetoric that I am seeing in this newsgroup, and that was one of the tamer missives. It seems that everything is fair game, and they feel that artists should be flattered rather than angry when this happens. asp1vip - I agree with you as well. The complacency in today's society has led us to this situation. Somewhat like closing the barn door after the cows are already out. ----------------------------- ANOTHER QUOTE - DIFFERENT PERSON "If a ACTUAL ARTIST contacts me, about any infringement of their art, and ASKS me to remove the images, then YES! I would be more than happy to!!! YES, that was me passing along some tubes of Garfield, I did not tube them, but I shared them. And until Jim Davis comes and gives me a phone call or a hand written letter asking me NOT to share his art, I will continue to do so. Just because *I* share something, does not mean I am FORCING any of this groups members to do the same or advocating such actions, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. If I go and shave my head and take a picture and tube it and share it with everyone, IS everyone else going to do the same thing? I really don't think so. If I go posting and stating my opinion about this whole thing, and how idiotic this all really is, and how, in MY OWN OPINION that it is just a few people who are just trying to cause trouble, for others who are just having fun... and how these people really have NOTHING better to do with their petty little lives that cause someone else grief... will every other member in this club go and do the same thing???? I really don't think so. The last time I looked we didn't have any sheep in this club, and I am pretty sure that all of the members here CAN and WILL think for themselves. I do not control what another person does or doesn't do... there is the difference. You know, if it wasn't for some of the tubes that are passed around, I wouldn't know who alot of these artists even were! And it is because of the tubes that I go searching these same artists out on the net, to BUY their art or prints ect.. You would think that most starving artists would LOVE that sort of exposure no?" --------------------------------------------------------- With attitudes like that...no wonder.

Dizzie - the subject isn't exhausted until it stops. When somewhat takes my images from Renderosity and tubes them or creates a web set from them without permission and for profit, then there is an issue.

No Dizzie, it needs to be dealt with until it stops. If we just throw up our hands and walk away it will never stop. I agree that our society has really become accepting of the it's ok if you don't get caught. What a pity. Marque

Attached Link: http://www.daz3d.com/pages/broker/brokercontract.html

JoeyAristophanes, The models you mention in the Daz 3d store are products from some of the very talented brokers who work with Daz3d. As part of the brokering agreement (see link for the full text) states... "5.2 Intellectual Property. Licensor warrants that: (a) Licensor is the sole owner, free and clear, of all Licensed Intellectual Property and the Licensed Products or has a valid license from the owner thereof; (b) all Licensed Intellectual Property rights are valid and enforceable; and (c) the Licensed Products licensed to DAZ3D under this agreement will not, when used and exploited by DAZ3D as permitted under this license, infringe or violate any intellectual property right of any other person or entity." Decoding the legalese above, by signing the agreement the broker states that they have permission to use any copyrighted material & unless informed officially that an infringement exists Daz 3d will not (& in fact under current copyright law cannot) assume otherwise. Hopefully this will allow you to use any Daz 3d product with a clear conscience :-) D.M. Gorski Copyright Enforcement Agent Daz 3d Productions Inc.

In remark to the "they won't chase the little guys" sentiment, I had to laugh. Does the person who said this live under a rock? Recently, the RIAA has pursued lawsuits against individuals, college students, using school servers to serve illegal MP3 files. How's that for chasing the little guy? And as far as I know, they weren't selling them, just making them available. I agree with many here that it depends on the intent of the use of copyrighted/patented/trademarked materials that is the real issue. If one uses a picture of a Mustang in a render or a painting, I don't expect Ford to send in the lawyers - what would be their case? They'd have to sue anyone, anytime, anywhere who uses a Mustang in a picture or photographs one or uses its likeness, let's say, for a cartoon or comic. But, if the person is using it in a way, such as an accurate model or as a logo, that is being sold, then permission is required. There is a thin and difficult to traverse line between infringement and proper use made only worse by the lack of clear, concise delineations between them. At what level does a 3D model of a car become copyright/patent/trademark infringement? I see the day when companies will "license" or sell their products as 3D models just like physical models (e.g.). No more making your own that is very accurate, fearing court summons; you'll have to buy the "legit" model. Somewhat scary... BYS

"You know, if it wasn't for some of the tubes that are passed around, I wouldn't know who alot of these artists even were! And it is because of the tubes that I go searching these same artists out on the net, to BUY their art or prints ect.. You would think that most starving artists would LOVE that sort of exposure no?" Yes, who among us would not love having our work taken without our permission and sold to other people. I can't imagine who would not jump with joy at that idea, especially when our names are not in evidence and and their's are-- what wonderful publicity!! The only reason these groups keep spouting that bs is they are guilty, feel guilty, and need to suppress that feeling so -- it's our fault for not feeling grateful to them. Emily sarcasm for free

Attached Link: http://www.karinsbeautifulsite.com/tubesstart.html

If we are not at lest on the out look and try to stop this, They will just become more bold. Myself, I love my Jungle2-D CD and I do use legal tubes. I ran through the links at the psp forum on Fairy Tubes and people and only found one that was a ?. Now this person could very well have poser and bought the pentals outfit for Mill girls, then it would be legal is my guess. Since they sell it at Poser pros I posted it there. *** I have been going to tube sites, not groups and looking at the Tubes. But I'm about ready to Quit this, since I have to run Adware and have removed over a 100 crap on my computer. So this link sure isn't like the other Woman. People do weird things and paint right over the top of our posts or run them through a action or paint change tool. It's just smart to be on the look.

These threads usually end up with nothing resolved, sadly. It's very frustrating; I don't know if any of my stuff has been nabbed, but then I don't use the Gallery or other very public mediums -- most of the stuff I do is either for fun or for illustration in game documentation. It seems to me that a potential solution might be for a coalition of artists to assemble as an official group/organization, get a lawyer, and go after these little guys. That could spread the legal costs around enough that it just might work. Erik "Kep"

Cooler, that isn't real reassuring, sorry. A permission is a permission, and if DAZ can't be bothered to check out whether or not their brokered artists actually have the legal right to use a BMW trademark or a Harley Davidson design and then indicate as much on the product page, then I have to assume you don't have those items clear and safe. To just say "Oh well, it's the broker's responsibility" isn't good enough. At the very least, you guys should see the correspondence between your broker and the company in question to make sure you have the right to reproduce it. Dodger: "As a note, the design of the Beemer is also fair game". Sorry, bud, but no. It's a trademark. And trademarks can be protected as viciously as copyrighted material.

As for Disney suing an orphanage, yes that one's true, and I'm sure they didn't like doing it any more than the orphanage liked getting that letter- but the fact is that if they didn't stop them, they risked the character's copywrite becoming "Common Property" and usable by anybody- which is why companies go after "small fry" as much as they go after the big dogs. They also couldn't just let them use the characters for a tiny fee, because they'd already charged other companies character usage, and those companies would balk at not getting the same cheap usage that the orphanage/day care center got. Fortunately, Hanna-Barbara donated free usage of their characters to the orphanage, so it all worked out in the end.

Joey, It's not a question of "being bothered". Most licensing contracts between an artist & company for use of copyrighted material are governed by non-disclosure agreements. Corporations like Coca Cola, Harley-Davidson, General motors, etc grant literally thousands of requests for use of their trademarked/copyrighted material every year & I have yet to find any of them who are willing to divulge any information to a third party unless under threat of subpoena. Daz3d prefers to believe that their brokers are acting honorably when they sign their brokering agreement & will continue to do so, unless it is proven otherwise.

Attached Link: http://home.fuse.net/wizardpygal/index.html

Turtle...most of these sites will give you a bit more linkage to some sites that are usually kosher so to speak, but not all.

As one recently plagerized, not for artwork but for a journalistic article I wrote a few years ago, let me assure you that the little guy can get very very hurt. For almost no money, I closed down the paper that committed the act of plagerism. Copyright is serious business if you're willing to push it.

Cooler: "I have yet to find any of them who are willing to divulge any information" I'm not asking you to tell us how much was paid for the rights to use something like the Beemer logo. I just think it would be appropriate for you to put on the product page something to the effect that "BMW logo used by permission" or "Harley-Davidson is a recognized trademark of _________". For a company that has seen more than its share of its products being ripped off by other "artists", I have to admit I'm a little surprised by your laissez-faire attitude when it comes to other people's stuff.

Just to answer Marque (#8) - you quite misrepresent me. I have seen very successful action taken against sites that were posting other people's artwork without permission. The threat of legal action is quite effective. I entirely support such action. But you can be sure that another site will spring up somewhere else. Maybe that will steal someone else's pictures and not yours. I'm making a gloomy prediction that the problem in general isn't going to go away any time soon.

Not trying to misrepresent you. What you said offended me. I don't copy cd's for my friends, I don't download mp3's. You assume that if one owns a computer one does this. So don't misrepresent me please. If they spring up elsewhere you treat it like crab grass and go after them until they realize that it isn't warez that isn't going away, it's us, because we are tired of it, and we will stay with it until we stamp it out. The big companies may not worry so much about the little guy, they just raise the prices on the rest of us. We need to protect our rights. Thank you, Marque

"It's not a question of "being bothered". Most licensing contracts between an artist & company for use of copyrighted material are governed by non-disclosure agreements." A company will tell you if a third party is a official licensee. It'd be completely defeating the point to hide it in a non-disclosure agreement.

This morning I got a letter asking to use my posts as web pages. I nicely wrote back NO. (I dug this out of my junk mail because I have restricted list.) Since then I got from Yahoo mail a cartoon of a guy with a catus penis, well I don't need to on with this you get the idea. Another that said die bitch. So I went through my safe list again and delete anything that I don't use. This is the mind set of thoes Yahoo groups.

Well if using a copyrighted character without permission isn't really theft then why use the copyrighted character? If the intent of the user is to just make art then the character is irrelevant. The only reason to include a copyrighted character is to exploit that character in some way. For example, if an artist uses Superman in their art, the question is why use him if the artist has no intention of making some attempt at character recognition between the viewer and their art. If they just want a hero they could easily change the suit or hair etc. Same with Mickey Mouse or any other figure. Why have the figure if the intent isn't to somehow exploit that figure's identity in some way. This is a stickler with people who claim no harm or foul when using a copyrighted character. If they really don't intend to somehow use the actual recognized image of that character in some way then why bother to have that figure in the work to begin with. Same with cars and bikes. Why make a car look like a Bimmer if the intent isn't to imply its a Bimmer. Or why make a bike look like a Harley with a Harley logo if the intent isn't to somehow capture the name recognition and image of a harley. Now here are definite limitations (most bikes look a lot a like). But when adding logos and such the question is why do so unless the name or image recognition is being exploited in some way. I personally don't like the harmless excuse. Wonder Woman doesn't accidently end up in a picture. There is intent to use that particular image. Now whether the company thinks this is acceptable use or not (fan art etc) is another matter.

Attached Link: Beemers

*That's incorrect,* It is? *BMW trademarks their logo* Of course they do. Most people do. Yu don't even have to register it if you can establish prior use. So to trademark a logo, you merely have to use the logo. Therefore the BMW logo as we know it and as applied to 3D models would be an unregistered trademark owned by DAZ studios in this case. *they maintain that trademark no matter what the logo is placed on, be it a car, sign, or 3d model.* Oh, so why is it that BMW Imaging Systems (Business Machine Wholesale) is completely distinct from Bayerische Motoren Werke? But wait, there's more. There are [both live and dead registrations on] BMW dealership names that are completely seperate companies from BMW as service marks for the sale of automobiles rather than the manufacture of automobiles. As a matter of fact, take a look at what BMW [*does* have trademarked](http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=kv5npn.2.17). No, seems I was perfectly correct. However, thank you for the strong indication that you haven't got a bloody clue how trademark law and IP law in general works. Now please go learn something before you make a fool of yourself again, fygomatic. BeatYourSoul: *If one uses a picture of a Mustang in a render or a painting, I don't expect Ford to send in the lawyers - what would be their case? They'd have to sue anyone, anytime, anywhere who uses a Mustang in a picture or photographs one or uses its likeness, let's say, for a cartoon or comic. But, if the person is using it in a way, such as an accurate model or as a logo, that is being sold, then permission is required.* **No**, it *isn't*. [READ plase.](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/whatis.htm) [Or here](http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/basic/trade_defin.htm) It says, very specifically, *'...For example, a description of a machine could be copyrighted, but this would only prevent others from copying the description; it would not prevent others from writing a description of their own or from making and using the machine.'* A 3D model is a *description* of a machine, it's NOT a machine. It's a very detailed description -- a very very detailed description of what it looks like (and usually nothing about how it works) -- it's a description which only a computer can read accurately, and from which description a computer can draw you a picture of one, the description is that accurate. A model of a car does NOT violate trademark law because it's not the same good or service (unless they happen to have registered a trademark for 3D models and/or Poser content). A model of a car does not violate a patent, either, because it's not a working, people-moving machine. USPTO says '*A design consists of the visual ornamental characteristics embodied in, or applied to, an article of manufacture. Since a design is manifested in appearance, the subject matter of a design patent application may relate to the configuration or shape of an article, to the surface ornamentation applied to an article, or to the combination of configuration and surface ornamentation. A design for surface ornamentation is inseparable from the article to which it is applied and cannot exist alone. It must be a definite pattern of surface ornamentation, applied to an article of manufacture*.' You cannot copyright a machine.

Phantast "I'm making a gloomy prediction that the problem in general isn't going to go away any time soon." No it won't anytime soon, but the more people that are educated the fewer instances (I think) you'll see. There is no overnight slution though, that is true. There are good groups like ACAP and ARC that will contact these sites and inform them of their violations. What they do ask for in return is that you show a banner and a link to their site. It's not going to go away if you pretend it doesn't exist though.

"A model of a car does NOT violate trademark law because it's not the same good or service" So, Dodger, are you saying that if Mattel wants to make a die-cast toy miniature based on a BMW automobile then they don't have to get permission from BMW? Curious minds want to know... -jjsemp

cough cough I don't have either of these models (BMW and Harley), but I just went to Daz's site, and as far as I can see in the ad pics, neither model has the logo. The BMW has those letters on the license plate, and the bike is called a Harley but does not have the logo. I do know that Harley is VERY serious about how its logo is and enforces it very swiftly. Anywhere it is used must be licensed, whether on a bike, a T-shirt, a stuffed pig... anywhere. It is the logo that is valuable. Valuable enough for a four figure cost difference between a Harley and a near-identical competitor. Or even a two figure difference between a Harley stuffed pig and a Babe doll. As for naming the models that, I don't know.

Oh, forgot to add, that in the interest of accuracy, I think it should be noted that the BMW and Harley are brokered through DAZ, not made by DAZ. This could be an important difference.

Dodger: "You cannot copyright a machine" The BMW dealerships can of course use the trademark because they're selling BMW product that comes from BMW itself. But I doubt BMW would look kindly on someone selling knock-off beemers with the BMW logo plastered on them. And if you think "A model of a car does NOT violate trademark law because it's not the same good or service", then why did folks like Louis Vuitton and Versache go postal on companies in the Far East that were creating t-shirts that used their trademarks? At the very least, what you suggest is a tap dance around something that should just be common business courtesy: if you're gonna sell a Harley Davidson model that represents a copy of someone else's design work, then at least have the simple decency to write that "Harley-Davidson, the HD shield, etc etc, are all trademarks of Harley Davidson Inc and are used with permission". If you're gonna put the beemer logo on a for-sale model, then, again, have the simple business courtesy of writing on there "The BMW crest is a registered trademark of ___________ and is used with permission". After all, in both cases, it's not just some illustration. It's a product for sale, and if someone put up a model that used my trademark on it without my permission, you can sure bet I'd be on their ass in a second to remove it. Sorry to be so adamant about this, but it seems we get all upset when someone rips off a Poser artist and makes a tube, but we don't seem to care that much when it's ripping off a big company. In theory, DAZ (or anyone else who uses these kinds of trademarks in their MP products) isn't ripping them off because, in theory, all the licenses have been worked out. Why such a license would require a NDA seems a little silly (sorry, Cooler, but I just don't buy that for a moment), but to not even acknowledge that you're using someone else's work... that really escapes me.

By the way, Fyre, if you look at the images of the 2003 EU Roadster, the BMW logo is on the hubcaps, the side panels, and the trunk. The Harley has the HD typography on the gas tank.

To answer the original poster's question....I can honestly say I never have! Not a record, not a movie, and I don't use MP3's! I buy my music at the music store and play it the way it's suppose to be played. I quit using most tubes some time ago when I saw the disney and precious moments tubes on line. It was clearly a copyright violation. It's pretty easy to tell what's "original" and what's not....you can tell if someone has "clipped". The bottom line: follow the rules and read the "readme files". If you're not sure about something: ask. If you want to use someone's work: ask. If they say no: don't use it! Pretty simple to me.....but then I'm from Minnesota, where everything's a bit simple :)

JJsemp: NO: 1) BMW owns a design patent for a die cast toy automobile. Actually several. One for each model of car or motorbike they manufacture, at least. 2) BMW owns the following registered trademark: IC 028. US 022 023 038 050. G & S: Bicycle bags; golf bags; golf balls; golf divot tools; golf gloves; toy racetracks; snowboards; skateboards; toy motorcycles; miniature toy vehicles But if they did not protect their design this way, then yes, Mattel could. They do not protect against 3D models (which are actually, in OBJ format and CR2, text descriptions anyway) Joey: ...I doubt BMW would look kindly on someone selling knock-off beemers with the BMW logo plastered on them Of course not. They have a trademark on clothing using that name. If they didn't, it would not matter how they looked on it. ...why did folks like Louis Vuitton and Versache go postal on companies in the Far East that were creating t-shirts that used their trademarks? Because that is the same good. The specific design of a shirt isn't what's protected by trademark, it's the manufacture of shirts in general. what you suggest is a tap dance around something that should just be common business courtesy No, what I 'suggest' is the law. It's the way IP law works, and it will keep working that way whether or not you understand it. A 3D model is a description of an item. It's a set of instructions for drawing that item. If the instructions explain how to draw a BMW and the result looks like a photo of a BMW, it's irrelevant. The Millenium Falcon, as a part of Lucas' Star Wars copyrighted series of stories, can't be sold becuase a description of how to draw it is still a copyright violation. But you can't copyright a machine. Romantic notions to the contrary, a functional mass-produced machine is not considered a work of art no matter how much you like 'Stangs, Bel Airs, and '63 split rear window 'Vettes. It's a patentable device, not a copyrightable one. The appearance of the vehicle is covered under Design Patent, but for that to apply the competing item must also be a car. The big chunk of text I quoted in my last message was not me or anyone elucidating on the subject -- it was from the United States Patent and Trademark Office website. if someone put up a model that used my trademark on it without my permission, you can sure bet I'd be on their ass in a second to remove it If you have a trademark that applies to 3D models, Poser content, or somesuch, you'd have every right to. If you did not have a trademark that applied to an applicable good, then the person on whom's ass you were in a second would and should have harrassment charges filed against you right after they sue you for challenging their trademark if you try it. DAZ is not obligated to gain any permission to use those trademarks because DAZ is not selling automobiles (or anything else BMW or Harley Davidson has trademarks on, which is a lot, especially in the latter case). In theory, DAZ (or anyone else who uses these kinds of trademarks in their MP products) isn't ripping them off because, in theory, all the licenses have been worked out. Exactly. A trademark search for 3D models trademarked under the name BMW or Harley Davidson would have been done, after which point if it's not found, the licenses are worked out because they belong to the artist. Trademarks are much like domain names. If you register the .com version of something, someone can still register the .net version whether you like it or not. Now, will the next person to try to argue with me about this please quote some law or other official documentation if you feel the need to contend? I'm afraid I can only express disdain for people trying to argue against my quoting of USPTO explanations with 'theory' and what passes for logic or at least philosophy. I'm talking what's legal here. Period. If I registered the trademark 'Star Wars' for hubcap manufacture and Lucas Arts did not have such a trademark, nor did antyone else, I could sell all the damned Star Wars hubcaps I pleased and George couldn't do a thing about it. However, if I used a scene from a Star Wars movie to advertise it, I'd be viol;ating his copyright on the series. If I produced a toy Millenium Falcon, i'd be violating both LucasArts' Trademark to sell Star Wars toys and also likely Hasbro's Design Patent for toys that look like the Millenium Falcon. If I sold a Millenium Falcon Poser figure, I couldnt' call it that, and if I called it that, it couldn't look like it. Because if I did both I'd end up with a copyright violation. As a note, unless I sold through DAZ, I could also not use the name Millenium Falcon for a whole different reason -- DAZ has an unregistered trademark by precedent for the term 'Millenium' on Poser figures.

Dodger: "I'm afraid I can only express disdain for people trying to argue against my quoting of USPTO explanations with 'theory' and what passes for logic or at least philosophy" If I applied the logic you're presenting, then the entire point of a trademark vanishes. Well, tell you what, Dodger. Let's put it to the people who actually own the trademark and see what they say. If BMW and Harley say no problem, I'll be happy to post it. But sorry, I don't agree with the stretched application of the law as you describe it. You yourself even write: "If I sold a Millenium Falcon Poser figure, I couldnt' call it that, and if I called it that, it couldn't look like it." The DAZ Harley not only looks like one, it has the name as well. And BMW Z7 sure looks like a Beemer Z7 to me. So I'm not sure how we juggle between the two. Oh wait, that's just theory on my part, right? But like I said, it's not that big a deal to send a note off to the trademark holders and see what they say. Who knows, maybe they'll even say there's an NDA with the brokers, in which case everyone winds up happy. But if it's all the same to you, at this point I think I'd really prefer asking the folks who actually own the goods.

If I applied the logic you're presenting, then the entire point of a trademark vanishes. I'm not presenting logic, I'm presenting the law as it's written and stands. Didn't I say that? I thought I'd said that. Yep, no... wait.... yep. I said that. For Christ's sake. I don't know why I'm arguing with you even; It doesn't matter what you think. You're wrong on how the law works. Oh, yeah, I'm arguing with you to try and get you to stop spreading misinformation to people and this fucked up attempt to spread shit about DAZ. You yourself even write: "If I sold a Millenium Falcon Poser figure, I couldnt' call it that, and if I called it that, it couldn't look like it." The DAZ Harley not only looks like one, it has the name as well. Because the Millenium Falcon is a violation of COPYRIGHT, &*@#!. It's a direct marketing of something created as part of a work of fiction that is covered under copyright law. Copyright law is not even the same damned bureau as Patent and Trademark, which are the only IP protections that cover Beemers and Harleys. The DAZ Harley doesn't looking anything like a bloody Speeder Bike. Oh wait, that's just theory on my part, right? No, it's a demonstration of a complete inability for you to comprehend anything I've written, from what I can tell, not to mention a complete inability to comprehend what the USPTO has written as well (if you even read it). But if it's all the same to you, at this point I think I'd really prefer asking the folks who actually own the goods. Fine, I couldn't give a damn if you choose to limit yourself above what the law requires. Further, if you're asking about IP law, maybe you should ask an IP lawyer -- hello?! As a matter of fact, if you're selling Poser content, I'll be perfectly willing to giggle hysterically while you hop around after shooting yourself in the foot. BUT STOP SPREADING MISINFORMATION. I've described what the laws are ad nausaeum. If you insist on a dunderheaded unwillingness to grasp or accept them, then by all means, limit yourself.

Dodger, take a Valium, okay? I asked my damn question because I happen to work in advertising and happen to know first hand what's involved when using licensed trademarks. Yeah, I can build a website called www.bmw.com, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. But the moment I put the Beemer crest on it, I'm setting myself up for a whole whack of trouble. So rail away. I'll wait for the response from BMW and see what they say. Who knows, you just might be right.

I think Phantast made an excellent point. This has more to do with mindset than anything else. Many people simply don't see what they're doing as "wrong" enough to stop doing it, absent any legal or other repercussions. Yes, small fry do get caught, but without some draconian system that I don't think any of want to see, (like a permanent digital ID for anyone to do anything so it can be traced back to them,) the odds of getting caught are slim. If every ISP started banning every user who had a graphic, not their own on their site, they'd go lose half their business. I also disagree with the "degeneracy of modern society" theory. People have been stealing and plagarizing since day one. What the internet and digital media have done is make it infinitely easier. There is also a sense that things digital are not really tangible in the same way that people would view stealing a car. You make a perfect copy, the original stays in place and especially if there's no price attatched to the item, no one's out anything. Getting people to understand that you are losing something from their actions is the difficult part. It won't deter the outright thieves any more than shoplifting laws completely eliminate shoplifting but it will help with some people. I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't pursue legal and technical means of discouraging theft, only that for now, those efforts will have limited success. Education won't be a panacea either, just another tool until something better comes along. Other than that, the cold reality is that, as Phantast suggests, except to the people who create it, snatching images off the 'net is going to rank pretty low on the scale of mankind's immorality. It may sound like capitulation to evil but rather than composing largely ineffectual copyright notices and searching the web for violators, one might emphasize getting credit, ala 'If you use all or a part of one of my images, please include the following credit...'Failure to do so is a violation of my copyright...' Give people a place to submit a link to the page where they plan to post the image, a prominent email form to ask for permission, etc. Again, not a panacea, but chipping away at a large problem. This of course, isn't an option for the galleries here or if you just don't want anyone using the stuff at all.

If you create a 3d model that looks exactaly like a Harley Davidson, then you stick the Harley Davidson logo on it, there's a likelihood the consumer is going to think Harley Davidson made this. They don't have to mistake it for a machine and it doesn't have to be in direct competition with any of Harley Davidson's product line. It's this sort of confusion over source or implied endorsement that's at the heart of trademark violations.

I think the only clear way to prevent people from making tubes of your art work, is to not post your artwork up on the very "public" Internet. Unfortunately, anything you post is pretty much fair game. I agree with Imckenzie that maybe trying to get people to at least give you credit or giving them a form to fill out for permission to use is a start. The thing about tubes, then, is that pretty much all of them are "illegal", because unless the person makes a tube of a picture they drew or created, or the tube is from a copyright free image, they are all from an image of something, from somewhere. Me, personally, as long as the person isn't selling something and making money off of it, I don't care if they use what I post on the Internet, because I assume once I post it publically, it's "out there" and people are going to use it if they like it. Of course, legal issues and copyright issues are another can of worms altogether. Before the advent of MP3s and digital music, what did the music companies do about people tape recording music off the radio?

Marque, no intention to offend was meant. Clearly there are SOME totally innocent people, and sandoppe is another besides you. But I bet you at least know people who don't see sharing their music as wrong. The answer to Cyhiraeth is that, in some countries, they tried to get tax put on blank cassettes - the tax revenues to go, of course, to the recording biz. Mason raises an interesting point - what about fan art? There was a big contest recently at Animotions to design a comic book cover, and there were that many Supermans, X-Mens, Wonder Womans, etc, complete with title lettering and even comic company logos. I presume that DC et al have no interest in suing either Animotions or the individual artists out of existence, but could they if they wanted to? Are Poser Superman pictures properly permissible, or are they legally liable and only surviving because DC can't be bothered to hunt them down?

Are Poser Superman pictures properly permissible, or are they legally liable and only surviving because DC can't be bothered to hunt them down That one's a weird one, in that if it's not derived from an actual Superman drawing (though he's been drawn from so many angles it woudl be hard to prove one way or another) then it's not a copyright violation per se, but if the pic is sold then it's using his image for profit which could easily violate both copyright and trademark laws at the same time. Pretty much when it's fan art and not sold, then they could sue you, but only for a cease and desist as there is no profit made and thus no portion that can be claimed by the owning company. They don't do that because that fan art means fans, and those are things they like. It's not that DC can't be bothere to hunt them down, it's that AOL doesn't WANT to, because that would be pretty bad PR -- hard to keep a fan you've sued for a cease and desist.

"They don't do that because that fan art means fans, and those are things they like." This is why you take internet legal advice with a grain of salt, reality is DC and the other major comic companies have been very vigilant in protecting their trademark. Marvel Comics and The Simpsons have shut down countless fan sites.

So what about the orphanage in Hawaii? Was that a cease and desist case?

Hey dodger, Despite your apparent frustration with our ignorance, I think you've been giving out a valuable virtual course on trademark and copyright law and I've learned a few things from this thread. This has been one of the few INFORMATIVE threads on this subject that I've encountered in along time. You really DO know your stuff, which I respect. So thanks! -jjsemp