While browsing through the store yesterday (something i rarely have time to do anymore), a product caught my eye. soccer coach's 'Danelle' character for the millennium preteen. even though she was wearing jeans, sneakers and a tank top, something about the body style immediately caught my eye in the thumbnail. even under the clothing in the promo images, i could recognise my character morph. so i purchased the character and spent the next 4-5 hours doing a comparison. i called Rio to the computer and asked her 'who does this look like', and the first thing out of her lips was 'thats Nia'. and she didnt even create the morph, only helped on the texturing. the 'Danelle' character is a direct ripoff of my Nia character, formerly at RuntimeDNA (since Dec 21, 2002), and now here at Renderosity. even though the origins were evident at a glance, ive tried my hardest to be open minded about this thing, telling myself 'maybe im wrong, maybe theres a possibility he did create this from scratch and its just a coincidental similarity'. but after examining this product for hours, there isnt a shred of doubt in my mind that my Nia custom morph and texture were used to create this product. ive spent days on this product, and when you spend days molding, shaping something by hand, it becomes instantly recogniseable even from a thumbnail. now the debate about wether or not 'morph dial settings' are copyrightable does not apply here. Nia is NOT a set of 'dial-twists', shes a complte remorph of the entire millennium preteen body and head to create something entirely new. 'Denelle' not only incorporates the nia body morph, but also my nia body texture. some attempts have been made to disguise Denelle's origins. both in photoshop (for the texture), and zbrush (most likely) for the body morph. theres a bit of smoothing and some rescaling of some parts - possibly the custom Nia morph dial has been turned down to below 1.000 on some parts of the body. but anyone with even a slight familiarity with poser texturing and custom morphing in programs such as zbrush can tell at a glance that Denelle is a derivative. i have put up an in-depth comparison page here: http://www.blackhearted.com/comparison/ youre welcome to come to your own conclusions. if anyone tries to bitch me out for publicly posting a small version of 'Denelle's texture, keep in mind that this is a ripoff of MY OWN texture, and therefore i have every right to do so. besides, both textures are thumbnail size and cropped, and it would be next to impossible to actually 'use' these on a model. i have filed a copyright infringement notice at rosity last night. i figured if hed just slink away quietly after this, id let itgo without even posting anything. but he has the GALL to issue a counterclaim, therefore im presenting this to the community to show what goes on in the marketplace. for every one of these that the community notices, how many are there that slip past the testers? im willing to bet that for every one that gets caught, ten go by unnoticed, and unpunished. i only happened upon this one by chance. as for unpunished - soccer_coach, after some minor discomfort, walks away the winner here. his item is pulled from the store, but cheques were mailed out yesterday, so hell be laughing all the way to the bank. 'Denelle' was formerly #4 on the top sellers list for this month. so hell take his $500-600 or so and walk, free to do this again or perhaps release it at another community store. and this isnt a 'copyright blunder'. im well aware that every merchant, myself included, has made small errors or copyright infringements in their newbie, or not-so-newbie merchant careers. but these are often small honest mistakes, are rectified immediately, and the product is modified and reuploaded while its in testing or before more than a couple of sales are made. this is not a 'copyright blunder', or an 'honest mistake'. the entire Nia morph and texture has been used here, with attempts to disguise them both. a little morph tweaking in zbrush, some gaussian blur, hue and saturation, noise and a few touches with the clone tool DO NOT CONSTITUTE YOUR OWN WORK. its a blatant ripoff, and now im starting to see why people like Anton get so fuming mad and verbal about issues like this. ironically i thought he was overreacting in his copyright infringement posts that i read earlier, and thought he was being a wee bit heavy-handed. now i think otherwise. i have to go now - i have a funeral to attend in an hour, and another one tomorrow, sigh. ill be back later today (hopefully). i could have done without this crap to deal with this weekend, i have so little time as it is. instead it falls upon ME to police the marketplace for ripoffs of my product, and to waste hours of my time doing comparisons to prove that they are such. cheers, -gabriel

Ouch. I haven't bought either product; but, ouch.

I didn't buy Danelle but I do own Nia. When I saw the Danelle ad in the Marketplace, I remember thinking she looked rather familiar, but the character didn't interest me so I didn't pay much attention. After looking at your web page of evidence I'm speechless -- this is not only such a blatant rip-off, but of such a distinctive figure! Nia is one of the few characters for the MilGirl, and she's definitely one of the most unusual and recognizable ones. How on earth did soccer coach think he could put this over?

if his cheque was only mailed yesterday can't Renderosity cancel it and send it to you instead? Also, can't renderosity provide you with his address and personal information so you can go after this person in court?

many other people have suggested that renderosity should not issue, or cancel the cheque to this vendor for this product. since cheques went out last night, and the mail system is pretty slow (and usually not in motion on weekends), they would have plenty of time to cancel the cheques. seeing as all of his purchasers have purchased a warez product and legally arent even licensed to use it, that would seem to be a sound decision. problem is, this copyright infringement claim/counterclaim process will take up to ten days, and by that time he will have cashed his cheque and laughed his ass off at a 'job well done'. what i would really like to see is everyone who purchased it get a refund, or at least a partial refund. i realise that renderosity would bear quite a cost from refunding so many purchases - because of processing fees, credit card fees, etc etc... but SOMETHING needs to be done or there is absolutely no discouragement for people that resort to this. basically, all they have to do is get away with it long enough to make a quick buck, and then it doesnt matter if they get caught - in the worst case the product will be pulled but they still keep all of the money they made. i was told by renderosity admins that the renderosity administration's responsibility ends in pulling the product. after that, any monetary claims, etc, are up to the two merchants to work out. as for taking him to court - how realistic is that? over a few hundred dollars? i dont even know if this guy is in continental north america... he could be in japan or europe for all i know. i doubt interpol is going to extradite him to canada for some major legal battle over an intangible product that only made a few hundred dollars. no, this should be dealt with by renderosity and the community. think about it. in the worst case, this guys product will be pulled permanently. woohoo. he still comes out, by far, the winner. he spent a few hours ripping off a successful product, put it up in the store and made several hundred dollars in a week or so. now it comes to light that he is not the creator of the product... but so what? he still gets his cheque, and nothing has occurred to discourage him from doing this again. in fact, he has the audacity to file a counterclaim to further delay the process. the scary thing is this though: even if the cheques werent mailed yesterday. even if this was the middle of the month, and his product was examined by the administration and proven to be a ripoff, and it was pulled from the store - HE WOULD STILL GET PAID. at the end of the month, he would still get his cheque mailed to him, and hed still be laughing his ass off at me, the poor customers who bought the damned thing - many of them had already purchased Nia and now have 2 identical products - and the administration and community. and hed definitely do it again - this time making sure he was more careful in disguising the origins of his work. so, there is a huge problem here atrenderosity. at the moment renderosity takes NO RESPONSIBILITY for enforcing copyright claims, even though the site facilitates their perpetration. and, people know that it is not within most artist's means to take a matter like this to court - especially over an intangible item and an offense that totals under a grand. so people get away with it, and there are no deterrents. they dont even get banned from the site. so what id like to see is renderosity take more responsibility in protecting its merchants interests. no, im not asking for it to hire a hoarde of admins to police the marketplace and freestuff looking for potential offenders, nor am i asking them to pay for my legal costs or take legal action on my behalf or anything rediculous like that. what i AM asking, however, is that a firm set of policies come into place that deal with this type of activity. a set of rules for the marketplace and freestuff that protects the merchants and their intellectual property. ie: first offense - warning, immediate removal of product. second offense - removal of the merchant account and banning from renderosity in the case of an artist having their intellectual property ripped off and sold under another merchant name, the offending merchant SHOULD NOT BE PAID. the profits should be reimbursed to the customers and/or the copyright owner, and all of the purchasers should be notified of what activity has taken place. now this is just an example. but i would like to see a firm set of guidelines in place for protection of intellectual property - wether those people are just uploading images to the gallery, uploading freestuff, or selling in the marketplace. thank you for your support. hopefully this gets resolved quickly, and with enough support by merchants issues like this become the catalyst for renderosity finally adopting some stricter policies on behalf of the intellectual property rights of the merchants it claims to support so much, and also those of merchants on other sites and communities. cheers, -gabriel (posted a copy of this in the other thread in the poser forum: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=12356&Form.ShowMessage=1223357 )

Hey Gabriel, long time no speak mate, Man, this is ugly....but unfortunately inevitable. You're a successful merchant.....in a way you've become a brand...and look at the way people counterfeit successful brands. I fully agree that payment made for sales of a product in dispute should at the very least be held until the matter is resolved one way or another. And to give R'osity its due, hasty judgements can be repented at leisure. But, should an item be found to in actuality be another product, then no way should the offending merchant get paid. As for what you do with the money already taken for the offending product.....thats another story. Hope you get this sorted.

I think they should hold the money if the product is going to be pulled, for the customers that purchased her lately. Then they should refund them their money, because they were victims in all this,explain why. I would think as part of Renderosity's agreement, they have to provide customer service, this is a function of that.

Whew - Ok, Looks like I need to make a fwe comments. The product in question has been pulled from the MarketPlace. All merchants agree to this when uploading products: "By uploading a product, you are representing that you are the sole owner of the intellectual property being uploaded or that you have the legal right to sell the intellectual property on behalf of the owner. You agree to indemnify Bondware Inc. in any dispute which may arise regarding products that you sell through this site." We do have a process in place for continual copyright issues from specific members: "Under the appropriate circumstances of repeat infringers, it is Renderosity's policy to remove and/or disable a Contributor's store in The MarketPlace at Renderosity." Just to clarify some of the point/questions listed above. Clint

I think his store should be disabled entirely until the copyright infringement issue is sorted out. If in fact this is a rip off, there may be other items in his store that are also rip offs. Temporarily shutting down his store, pending a decision on the infringement claim/counterclaim, would ensure that no one else purchases a potentially fraudulent product until a decision is reached. If found in Blackhearted's favor, Rendo should shut him down permanently. Clint I can understand what you've written above and the need to be "held harmless" in a legal proceeding, but the customers of Renderosity do count on Rendo to ensure that the products they buy are legit. I didn't buy either product, but what about some poor hobbyist who did. If this is a ripoff, they are stuck with what amounts to a "warez" product that technically, they cannot even use.

"Under the appropriate circumstances of repeat infringers, it is Renderosity's policy to remove and/or disable a Contributor's store in The MarketPlace at Renderosity." yeah, but they still get paid for all the ripoff's sales, huh? thats the part that needs some serious amendment, clint. its rediculous. and please, noone get me wrong. im NOT after the few hundred dollars the guy made here. i want some form of DISCOURAGEMENT for people trying schemes like this. if you pull his product but still mail his cheque, wtf discourages him from doing it again? he SUCCEEDED. if you pull his product and refund his profits at least to the customers as store credit - a partial refund, then he no longer has profited, he wasted his time in creating/disguising/promoting the ripoff, and hes been exposed as a fraud. THAT is DISCOURAGEMENT. mailing him his check and saying 'sorry, you cant continue to make money off this other merchant's product' is a joke.

While reading this thread, an idea popped into my head. I don't know how easy this might be to implement, but perhaps this might be a partial solution to the problem ... and I offer it as food for thought ... The ideal time to catch potential copyright violations is before the product goes up for sale. So, perhaps what might help is to create a forum in which the store staff posts the promotional pictures that are submitted with a product, and then the marketplace vendors can see the promo renders before the item goes into the store. The previews will not be viewable to the general public, but in a new forum that only the merchants have access to. While the product is being tested for release, the remaining vendors will have a chance to view the promo images beforehand (as in most cases the similarities can show up there). Then if there is any concern about potential copyright violation the release of the product can be held until it is checked out.

Gosh Blackhearted, I am so sorry to hear this. And I agree about the payment issue. At the very least, that money should go back to the customers who purchased the product, since they now paid money for something they can not "legally" use. Deecey - while that sounds like a good idea, there are a few problems, namely that not all merchants who might be ripped off sell here. For instance, Nia wasn't for sale here until yesterday(?) Since Nia was sold at RDNA if Blackhearted hadn't had a merchant account here for other products in the MarketPlace, he wouldn't have had access to the forum, so he still wouldn't have seen it anyway.

"The ideal time to catch potential copyright violations is before the product goes up for sale. So, perhaps what might help is to create a forum in which the store staff posts the promotional pictures that are submitted with a product, and then the marketplace vendors can see the promo renders before the item goes into the store."

I would campaign against that actually. Already people feel the need to keep ideas under their hat till they're released. It's not easy to find someone working on the same idea at the same time even though repetition in any market is inevitable. And not necessarily bad. Cake1's Real Eyes came out a while back and now several have used that idea. Variety is good so long as the timing is right or the merchants agree. And I'm not even going to go into the fact that it is possible for two or more people to have the same idea. I have a pose I did from a reference photo and bought a pose package with a pose so similar they had to have used the same reference. I'm certainly not going to scrap mine because of it. I think such a forum would open up more arguements than it would quell.

However, look at the ratio of copyright violators to legit artists in the marketplace. A small handful of violators don't warrant treating the rest like children.

yeah i do agree with kendra here - public postings of products in the testing queue is a no-no. itll cut down the time that the 'legally acceptable' idea thiefs have to create a knockoff. i generally do not post any WIPses. i upload the product to the testing queue, with a quick promo, and while it is in testing i finish up my final promos. a day before its released, or right AS its released, ill post my product in the product showcase forum. posting product renders in the queue, ESPECIALLY if for some reason they get held up for weeks, is a bad idea. wed have idea vultures scouring that forum to scavenge ideas for their own products. thered even be a small possibility, in the case of a delay, that quick idea-thieving merchants could release their knockoff and get it out in the MP before the item theyve ripped off passes testing. as for the cake1's realeyes thing - i disagree on that specific product, although i see where youre coming from. i dont think that cake can hold any claim on eye geometries for the millennium characters. i created my blackeyes, another replacement eye geometry product, over a year after realeyes -- beqcause when i was creating my elowen texture i ran into problems matching eye realism to the texture realism. i created a very realistic texture, and no matter what i did with vicky's default eyes i couldnt get them to match the realism - they stuck out like a sore thumb because of their very simple flat geometry. so i modelled new eyes for the elowen pack only, eyes that matched the realism of the texture. the geometry isnt even remotely similar to realeyes (which i dont have), since realeyes has conical irises and mine more closely resemble the human iris physiology with conmcave ones with rounded edges. afterwards, customers praised the eye element of the elowen pack and clamoured for support for the other millennium characters, so i released a standalone eye for all the milennium characters and other models as well. cake cant hold the rights to all eye geometries any more than daz can hold the rights to all female figure geometries. its rediculous. its simply a part of the human anatomy. and, if i remember correctly, someone beat her to it anyway -- i remember a member named gsalas having some alternate eye geometries for posette available at least two years before cake thought of her realeyes. however, out of respect for another merchant, you shouldnt release a similar product in the marketplace in a short time after theyve released theirs, especially a niche product like that. but it goes on constantly - in far worse ways. people copy makeups (even daz, and several other merchants, have created textures within weeks of my/rios/kieras texture releases with makeups that are clearly and alarmingly similar, and even promo text that is near identical), character bodies, package layouts/concepts, clothing styles and configurations, and the general 'look and feel' of a product. i look through the store and not only do i see products, and product packages, that are clearly influenced by my own (and i KNOW its by my own since many times ive been the first to release such a product), but even promos, promo text, etc. again, the 'look and feel'. while you cant copyright a style, its depressing that a lot of merchants just cant seem to develop a style of their own and constantly feed off of the styles other successful merchants. people have told me that i should be 'flattered' by this - that imitation is the highest form of flattery. im not flattered, not at all - im disgusted. but theres no way its going to change unless the entire human race gets an ethical overhaul, and thats not going to happen in my lifetime or in any of yours. for every case of direct product ripoffs - like this one - there are a hundred cases of style/idea ripoffs which may not go unnoticed, but certainly cant be stopped. cheers, -gabriel

and lets look at it from another perspective. im willing to stake my entire store, reputation and career at renderosity on that fact hat i have no doubt at all that soccer_coach has reverse-engineered both the nia custom morph and texture nia to create his 'own' denelle character. but, for the sake of argument, lets say he HASNT. lets say that through some miracle of coincidence he has managed to create virtually the exact same product from scratch. this is impossible, but for arguments sake lets go with it. and he KNOWS what nia looks like since he has purchased her from RDNA 4 months prior to his releasing denelle. it would still be disgustingly criminal. think about it - even if his argument that he created her from scratch were correct, wtf does that say about him? the characters LOOK EXACTLY THE SAME. if, for arguments sake and despite all the evidence to the contrary we were to believe that he did create denelle, its still a virtual carbon copy of nia. and this is 'OK'? now denelle is to be embraced? THAT is whats wrong with the human race as a whole. that we seem totally devoid of any ethics.

"even if his argument that he created her from scratch were correct, wtf does that say about him? the characters LOOK EXACTLY THE SAME. if, for arguments sake and despite all the evidence to the contrary we were to believe that he did create denelle, its still a virtual carbon copy of nia. and this is 'OK'? now denelle is to be embraced?
"

I wouldn't suggest that.

"By accident", we all know isn't even a factor in this case, but similar ideas and accidental similarities do deserve some consideration. However, it would be nice if, when it happens, the two merchants could strike up a dialog and resolve it. For example, I submitted my wedding dress textures to PP and Mehndi mentioned her white lacy texture for the same dress was ready to be released and she wanted me to know. I asked her opinion and asked if she wanted me to wait on mine. Since they were different, just for the same dress, neither of us had a problem with their proximity in the store.

I guess my point is I'm all for someone building a better mouse trap but I'm for adult behavior and attempts at working things out. And for the most part I think that is what goes on between the merchants here. I'd hate to see new product submission policies based on a handful of people who don't have the ethics they should in this case.

I would also say there is a period of courtesy before releasing a similar product on the market. Case in point: Back in September, I released a Hellhound model for P4/5. It's has a nice run of sales, but is beginning to peter off. Now, MallenLane is preparing to release a hellhound/gargoyle figure (he previewed it in one of the cat threads). Am I irritated? Absolutely not. It's been well over six months, and I doubt I'd sell more than one or two more. In addition, it is a totally different character with completely different geometry, and thus someone may with to purchase both, for some reason. Heck, most of us have at least two different dragons, so why not? However, if this same model had come out, say, three weeks after my Garm hit the stores, I would be highly irritated. I dare say MallenLane is one of the Beastie Masters, and he would have completely blown me out of the water. By the same token, if someone creates a "Gargoyle" made out of the mesh of my hellhound, and put it in the Marketplace, with only minor mesh differences ths week, I would be hopping mad, as mad as Gabe is right now. Similar ideas are one matter. Identical products are a totally different thing.