I have been using some products in my images that were given to me by a friend who no longer uses Poser as they are learning code. I was not aware that this was considered pirating since he no longer uses them and I have the files not copies. Fyrene (very nicely I might add) informed that this is still considered pirating and I would like to apologize to anyone whos products I have used. I am currently going through my read-mes but some of them are missing the read-me that lists who made it. If you see your product in my gallery please let me know. I am terribly sorry as I said I did not know that receiving files as a gift was still pirating. I would also like to thank Fyrene for allowing me to continue using the products that were created by Fyrewerks. I will be sure to give proper credit.

This is quite honorable of you, hon. Its rare that someone who received items that were given to them would admit it publicly. There are so many people, who in my opinion, really dont even realize that when someone just gives them a file that was created by a Merchant and sold here or elsewhere is receiving and using those files illegally. Then again, there are the people who know its not legal and use them anyway, they just dont care. Thanks again for being open and honest about this. Again, you have our permission to use anything you may have gotten from our store. Fyrene and GothicAngel

Just to be on the safe side I am only going to use freebies, things I made myself or things I purchased myself until this issue is resolved. And again I apologize to anyone whos items were used wrongly

For the confused and concerned would you or someone else explain why this is pirating? If the original owner, paid for it and is no longer using it what's the problem? I could see if it was free-stuff, and it was asked not to be redistributed, that it might be a violation of the read me but surely passing on software you don't use isn't a pirating issue. Or is Poser items suddenly different than every other software items I buy? IE if I buy Vue 4 and don't like it or use it I can delete it off my computer and sell it or give it away and it's perfectly legal. Same with Poser. It's the same with software I purchased ot run my gaming clan, when I no longer needed it, I passed it off to someone else and the software creator had no issue with this. So why are poser files any different? Thanks,

I would like to add my voice to the confused Moonbiter. Why is the software bought here different than a car or a book or any other software? As Cruelty noted, these are the originals, not copies, and the original owner isn't using them any more... What's the problem here? I not only would have made the same mistake in accepting, I am somewhat perturbed to know I'm only leasing my software indefinitely, not owning it, and therefore can't give it away if/when I don't want it anymore. What if that person bought the software for the other person? If you can give someone software as gift unused, why does it matter if it's used? Sorry for the long-windedness, but I really am concerned.

.

.

he has every right to use it if the other guy did not retain copys to use

i've always thought that was weird too... if he's never going to use the models or whatever again why not give them to someone who will make use of them?

I don't know anything for certain except UK rules on this one, but if the poser products count as software (as in code) then the copyright rules depend on the license for each product. To give an example, compare a full boxed product of Microsoft's XP operating system with an OEM version of the same operating system. It is legal to install the full boxed product on one machine, then to completely remove it from that machine and give or sell the product to someone else as long as any legal backup copy and all the associated documents are passed along with it and the original licensee retains nothing. It is NOT legal to do the same with an OEM version- the OEM verion is only licensed for use on the machine it was sold with. it is Microsoft who sets the terms of the two different licenses. I beleive this is the same in the U.S. If the poser products in question follow the same laws then it is down to the merchants in question to state what their license allows when they sell the product. This all assumes, of course, that they count as software not some other form of artistic expression. Any real copyright experts out there??

As HaiGan says, it depends on the license agreement. In the case of Poser products bought through Renderosity, the license agreement is clear: "Buyer is hereby granted a non-exclusive, non-transferable license to use all of the contents of the encapsulating archive file." Notice that word, "non-transferable"? That means you can't give away or sell your license to use the item. I don't have a copy of the DAZ license agreement handy, but I'll bet it says something similar. I'm not sure how the other stores handle it.

RIAA moves to software? lmfao. this is great, First the record company throws a fit because their artist aren't making money and now people are boycotting them due to their greed. And now the merchants are getting that way, or at least that's the way it seems to me. I can understand throwing a fit if someone doesn't pay for your product and only one person had purchased it or what have you, But as far as the "it's still pirating even if you have the original and he doesn't use it anymore" goes.. that seems like greed to me. We spend $20 on a package that we're only going to use for a short time and then put it aside untill something new comes out and then we buy more shit that we'll eventually toss aside like yesterday's trash. So if we stop using them after awhile... what are we doing? wasting our money.. especially if we remove the things from our HD just to preserve some sort of space and ship the disk to someone else... that in my eyes makes the merchants look greedy, and just like in the recording industry, people will end up boycotting, Which means that People like Fyrene and Ecstacy will not be getting paid for their amazing work. Not only that, but you can purchase something for someone else as gifts here... There's no difference between someone buying something for themselves and then not using it anymore and sending it to a friend after they get rid of it... What's the difference out side of someone test driving it first? I don't know about all of you, but i really don't see any difference. I would also like to say that i think fyrene was actually pretty level headed about the whole thing, which i think was a good move on Fyrene's part, however, just mentioning it or bringing it to light will and probibly has already started something that will keep going on and on. The war against piracy is a lost one, the more you protest against piracy, the more your going to drive your customers away. If you just kind of deal with it (granted, i know it's hard to do when your not making enough income to provide for yourself or what have you, especially if this is your only means of income) then more than likely, you will still get alot of customers... but their will always be piraters, and some money is better than none. Another thing is that someone giving you something as a gift is completely different then pirating. Pirating is giving the other person a duplicate of their file that they themselves did not pay for. A gift is where they send the product and delete it from their HD so it would still only be licensed by one person so to speak, and the only reason that i am bringing up both issues in the same post is because the gifts were misintrepreted as pirating. Now, i'm not for pirating myself but i feel that if someone gives someone else a file and deletes their file so that they don't have it as well or whatever (especially if they are no longer using it) and it's a gift, i feel that the recievers of that gift should not be punished for it. As far as me saying you're going to have to deal with piraters, i'm just trying to help out because i have been keeping up with the RIAA's actions and watching how their customers are responding, and alot of people are boycotting against buying any new cds or anything of that sort.. so because of the RIAA's actions, they're going to lose alot of customers or simply go out of buisness, Now I know you may not think that has anything to do with you, but what you may or may not fail to realize is that it's the same thing here. The more the merchants protest, the more the Customers and Piraters are going to protest because the merchants are coming off as greedy. Just trying to help you keep your head above water. Ketamine

Just for the record; any of my products, purchased in any of the stores that I sell at, may transferred to one other party so long as the original purchaser does not retain a copy for themselves. In other words, if you decide to give up your poser files, and are not going to use them ever again, I have no problem with you transferring your liscence to one other person, provided that they will be the sole owner of those files and abide by the spirit of liscence.

When you buy softgoods, you agree to abide by the license agreement. If you don't want to abide by the license agreement, you don't buy. It's as simple as that. I find it really strange that somebody would enter into a contract (which is what you do when you buy softgoods) and then some time after start jumping up and down saying that they don't agree to the contract and that the other party is being greedy. If you didn't agree to it, why did you enter the contract? For god's sake, people, do you just amble through life signing every dotted line without reading the fine print, or what? I know I never buy anything without knowing what the license says first. Merchants who sell at Rendo have to use the Rendo license. We don't get any say in what that license says. If you don't like what the license and you don't want to buy things with that license, take it up with ClintH. Don't go whining at "those evil merchants" about it.

I put a statement in all my read-me's that specifically states that transfer of ownership is allowed.

-.-

all right, well let me start by saying i'm not whinning about any thing, just throwing in my two cents... or should I conform to your thoughts and beliefs and throw them aside as if I were your mindless slave. Also, i'm not "whinning" about the license, i'm "whining" about the merchants confronting individuals about it... now I could get into the whole privacy issue but I feel them having a record of who bought what is more like a store keeping receipts so I don't have a quarrel with that, but at the same time, not every holds on to one specific sign in name either, and further more I don't really mind that the merchant is curious or what have you simply because I can understand where they're coming from simply because I know if i spent all day to make a beautiful texture, a prop or anything of that sort, I wouldn't be too happy with knowing that I was being ripped off either. But I think by confronting people with the situation is just going to make things worse, especially if the other person 1. Didn't know that excepting the gift was wrong or 2.They purchased the product under a different Sign In name because as I said, that makes the merchant look greedy and the consumer feel un comfortable which will inevitably lead to the consumer no longer funding the merchant by purchasing their work. As for myself, I don't buy anything simply because I feel that I would be wasting alot of money just to use it for one image and then simply toss the product aside, especially since I can't send the shit that I no longer use, to a friend so that I can clear some space on my Hard Drive without wasting that 20 bucks that I could have spent on something I needed. My intentions were nothing more than put my two cents in on what's going on... But hey, if you would prefer to throw a fit over a few people using their gifts to create spectacular images just because somebody didn't feel like wasting 20 dollars, so that you can lose the majority of you customers... then I say go for it. I've personally got nothing against the merchants. I can understand and appreciate exactly where they're coming from, and to be quite honest, i hope they never quit doing what they do, because they're work is absolutley amazing and in my eyes worth every penny when it's being used. But if this were to become a huge issue such as the KaZaA and RIAA has.. then all of the artist that put out those brilliant peices of work will be forced to quit because they feel that distributing their products is a waste of time since they're not getting any profit. But I also don't see any reason to spend money on something we're just going to throw away. Everything becomes outdated eventually.

I'd like to see where this goes. Personally, i think that if there is only one copy being used at the time, it is the same as buying it for them as a "gift." I don't see a difference. Yes it is digital, but what's the difference between buying a music cd and then giving it to a friend, and buying a Poser item, and then giving it to someone, provided you give them the only copy?

First up, let me point out that I don't in any way condone the practise of going through the galleries looking for people who are using an item but aren't on the buyer list, then pestering them to see where they got it. In fact, I'm one of the few merchants that take a very active stand against that practise. I've taken a lot of heat in the merchant forum because of my stand on that. Moreover, as a customer myself, I don't purchase from people who I know engage in that pratice. However, that is an entirely separate issue to the question of what license agreements say. The license says what it says and if you want to buy the item, you agree to abide by the license. If you don't think it's worth it with that license, you don't buy. Maybe the license should be different. I have no oppinion on that. Like other merchants, I have no input into what that license says. But I do know what it says and I set my prices acordingly. If I had to plan on people regularly passing things on once they'd finished using them, I'd set my prices higher. After all, if people were allowed to do that, what would stop them doing a render, passing vicki to someone else to do a render, then getting Vicki back so they could do another one etc. Under that sort of set-up, you could rent Vicki out by the day, like a video. If you don't see any reason to spend money on things you're going to use for a little while and then throw away, I can only suggest that you stop buying computers, since they're obsolete after a few years. You should definitely give up on food, since you only get to use that once before you flush it down the toilet. Painters don't expect to be able to use their canvas or their paint more than once. They don't expect to get many uses out of their brushes either. The degree of reusability in Poser products is a lot higher than in the vast majority of art supplies and the cost of doing a render is a lot lower than the cost of painting a picture. I honestly think we Poser users are very very spoiled where costs are concerned.

Cruelty you may use anything from my store that you may have gotten from your friend.

lol...original file? The original file resides on the creators computer/hard drive/CDRom, whatever. All others are copies of the creators original work. Just thought id like to clarify that:)

I suspect that if we took a poll of all 1000+ Renderosity merchants, we'd find that most would be okay with passing on software or files if they were honestly TRULY not being used anymore by the original purchaser. However, everyone who buys anything from Renderosity must first change the "I DO NOT AGREE" to "I AGREE" in the licence box on the order page in order to download any product, so it should be assumed FIRST, simply because it is stipulated in the licence agreement, that it is NOT okay to pass it on. If you want to pass it on, I would suggest contacting the merchant--whose contact information is required to be in the ZIP file, so if you have the original zip, you have the contact information--and ask. Probably nine times out of ten, the merchant will say "Sure! Thanks for letting me know."

This from the DAZ 3d EULA...

"The 3-D Model(s) is provided for User's exclusive use. User does not have the right to provide the 3-D Model(s) to others in any form or on any media."

Understand this is intended not only to prevent illegal distribution but also to avoid the "Rent-A-Vicki" scenario Ajax pointed out above. However DAZ has always been, & will continue to be, willing to work with customers on an individual basis if unusual situations arise.

If someone is "getting out of the business" & plans to no longer use purchased DAZ material the easiest thing to do is simply contact the office for permission to pass them along to other users.

Note this does not preclude buying a DAZ 3d product as a gift ("User" can be the person whom the model is intended for, not necessarily the purchaser), however a gift certificate is usually a preferred course of action.

Ketamine You would find out that many merchants are not greedy.. and it is the liscence we put in as merchants of rosity store NOT as merchants ourselves.

...right to "provide"... Well, wording is everything, eh? Ever hear of an assignment with a LOD? LOD = Letter of Destruction. You can do a google search for that. You may find that software can be transferred and for your protection, an assignment would be a good thing. Also, contacting the creator and sending an email or letter to make a record of the assignment or transfer. If you get a LOD from the guy you obtain the software from, well, that makes the assignment all the stronger. Just a thought.

I agree with Stormrage. Greed isn't a common trait. We are all end users, too. I don't know of a single merchant who uses ONLY their own stuff. I do want to say, though, that the Renderosity licence is VERY fair, and it's purpose is to protect both the merchant and the end user. We shouldn't fault Renderosity at all for the blanket restriction of distribution, as it is looking out for the best interest of every member. For legal simplicity, they must use ONE licence for all digital products, so the licence is broad in its spectrum. But again, I think it's very fair.

"what's the difference between buying a music cd and then giving it to a friend, and buying a Poser item, and then giving it to someone, provided you give them the only copy? " Technically, the difference is in the license. From a practical point of view, the differece is in how the price structure is set up. CDs are priced in such a way that they'll still make a reasonable profit even if they are re-sold or handed on. Poser products aren't. We had a thread in the merchant forum the other day talking about what we thought was a good level of sales. The general consensus was that if you sell more than 100 copies of something (over it's total lifetime in the store) then that's stellar performance for a product. To use myself as an example, I have only one product (out of 16) that has sold more than 100 copies. Many of them have sold fewer than 20 copies. The three lowest sold less than 10 before they were removed from the store. Out of the 1067 merchants at renderosity, I'm currently ranked at number 81 in terms of number of sales, so I'm doing better than 90% of merchants. Given the amount of work involved in making Poser products and the low number of sales that even a merchant in the top 10% of renderosity merchants can expect, the prices charged for Poser products are already ridiculously low. For most of us, there's no room to suddenly make licenses transferable without also raising prices to compensate. So would you rather buy a license that covers you and your friend even if you don't ever pass on your old unwanted product to him, or would you rather just pay for a license for yourself and give up on the idea of ever passing it to somebody else? I don't think I've ever come across a greedy merchant. The ones I know do it because they love Poser, not because they love money. On the other hand, I do come across greedy people in the Poser community - people who complain about free stuff ("Why isn't there a tutorial for this?", "Why doesn't this model fit Vicki as well as Posette?" etc) and people who want to be one of only 50 owners of a piece of skilled handiwork that took 50 hours and some very expensive software to make and also want 24 hour lifelong support, but want all of it for the price of a burger at McDonalds.

This is why all my stuff has a seperate license. It superseeds the R' license and it specifically permits the end user to sell or give away his copy so long as (s)he does not keep the original. From the Nerd 3D License... You may transfer all your rights to use the Model and Documentation to another person or legal entity provided you transfer this Agreement, the Model and Documentation, including all copies, update and prior versions to such person or entity and that you retain no copies, including copies stored on computer. So, if any of the product are mine... You already had my permission to continue using them.

The non-transferable license is something that on first glance seems unreasonable, but when looked into makes sense (as this thread has shown). I think the only circumstance under which it should be allowed is if the original purchaser has given up Poser altogether. (Which actually seems to be the case above.) On the other hand there IS something in the license agreement here (and I've seen it elsewhere too) that I completely ignore because it's unreasonable. "Buyer may make a single backup copy of this archive file, for personal archival purposes only" "personal archival purposes only" is certainly fine, but 'single backup copy' is absurd.

First i would like to appologize for not making myself 100% clear, I'm not saying the merchant's ARE greedy, I said it makes them come off as greedy. I apparently don't know alot of these people personally, so I can not actually judge them or sit here on my high horse and point the finger saying "you're greedy!", and I can say that same exact thing about the RIAA.. these people are trying to make a living off of something they're good at and in all respects should be paid for their efforts... however, by blowing everything out of porprotion, they're coming ACROSS AS GREEDY... not to say they are greedy, but that is how they are coming across and this is doing nothing more than pissing people off. The way things are going right now, I really dont see selling music, making music or anything like that happening in the future. In my honest opinion.. I believe that the music industry will eventually fall which would mean that we would no longer have music as a source of entertainment because the RIAA wanted to take this thing public and scare piraters. What does this have to do with Merchants and poser? Well, it looks to me that is the direction this is heading... I could be wrong, but I come here frequently because even the begginers put out damn good work and I love everything about art. I would hate to see art fall because people don't understand that people need money in order to survive. As far as wasting money goes.. Food, Cigarettes, clothes, drinks... whatever... all of that shit is shit I need with the exception of cigarettes... I do agree it's pretty much a waste of money for something that won't last, but these are things that will aid in my survival. I've tryed to quit eating, drinking and smoking to save money... but eventually give in to my bodies needs. I would love to give up on that shit... but my bodie wont let me. Now as far as things I don't need... I wont buy them... Such as wasting money on movies at theatres.. I don't see any point in that type of thing. Watch it once and i'm out 10 bucks, When i can spend 20 and watch it repeatedly, perhaps if I were going to use the product in more than one picture then yeah, I would buy it, simply because it's going to get used alot... meaning it wasn't really a waste to buy it. I know that type of behavior really isn't normal, but that's just my veiws on things. Nothing more, nothing less... it has nothing to do with the merchants, because as I have said, they're work is absolutley amazing, and I suppose you could take the whole "it's a waste of money" thing as an insult but I really wish you wouldn't because it's not intended that way. On another note, I agree with the "greedy customer" comment as well, because after all the freebies are just that... Free! How do you complain about something thats free!? That's just ignorant... if they can't figure it out then it's not like they're at a loss, it's not like they paid $20 for something they can't use. I don't understand those type of people personally. Anyhow, that's all I had oin my feeble mind. Ketamine

Anyone who purchases any of my products is restricted by license from transferring them to anotehr person. Of course, as I retain full copyright to any of my brokered or otherwise sold or provided works, I can give away free copies to anyone I please. So the thing is, while the licence restricts you from transferring the Renderosity license, I hereby and previously grant any of my purchasers, be they Renderosity OR DAZ purchasers, the right not to transfer the license (as that would not be in accordance with the license) but the right to choose a single recipient of a free copy and provide that copy to them from their own copy with a license that includes the same terms as the license under which they purchased it, with this additional clause, under the agreement that their copy is deleted along with all but one single backup which they may keep for archive purposes but not for use*. Further, I grant a free license to use an existing copy as installed to any other user of the same computer on which it is installed, provided the copy is not moved to any other computer. Further, I provide the ORIGINAL purchaser the right to make a copy onto ANY computer THEY OWN. In other words, your wife and kids can use it too. As if I had to say that. (but technically the license precludes it) * That way, if you stop using Poser and give your stuff to your little brother, and he frags his hard drive, you can back it up for him, you just cannot use it anymore. Now, as a note to pirates -- if I catch any of you pirating my stuff, I'm going to scold you, tell you depressing things, and make you feel so guilty you'll expect me to make you eat chicken soup and matzo next, and I'll insist you do your damnedest to make a good render and post it and credit me properly. Well, not that I'd ever catch you. And you'll have to sing my praises aroudn my emerald throne for eternity. So don't so it. And by the way, can I pet your parrot or does he bite?

Non-transferability is a standard in software licenses. If you do transfer a program you are often required to ask the company for permission and official forms. I hated 3dStudio so much that I sold it to a friend. (I'd paid $3000, but it kept throwing me back into DOS as though I was a pirate because the damned dongle argued with my printer... and there was NO customer service... they refused to help me.) They sent me the paperwork to transfer it, I filled out the forms saying that all copies were deleted from my system, and provided the name and address of the new owner... who was now eligible for upgrade pricing and on their mailing list. Maya, BTW is much worse. You get the license for that one computer. If you upgrade or change your system you need to transfer the license and they charge $1000 for the privilege. One of my colleagues had a computer go belly-up on her and even with evidence of a dead machine, she still had to pay them. :pffft: As noted above, many of the Poser items purchased are low-priced and highly specialized. Suppose that I bought a pirate ship for a particular rendering... and then just passed it on because I didn't need it anymore? And that person used it once and passed it on? The merchant would be losing maney and we'd be no better than the warez kiddies swapping music after they listened to it once. I'd rather have low prices and a limited license. Carolly

It might make things clearer to re-iterate this point: When you 'buy' a poser product, or download a freebie, or any other piece of software, you are NOT buying the product itself (or getting it for free). You are acquiring the right to use it. If you loaned someone a book, or a vacuum cleaner, or anything else, you'd expect that the person you loaned it to would at least ask before passing it along to someone else. If you said 'don't lend it to anyone else', I wouldn't find that unreasonable. When you rent a house, chances are that you contact states that you can't then sub-let the property to someone else. Again, I don't find that unreasonable. Software licenses that are non-transferrable have plenty of parallels, and few people seem to find the idea a problem when it's anything but software. The thing about software is that people tend to think that they own the product itself, not just the right to use it. Apparently it's different in Germany, though, where you really DO own the software if you've bought it.

I agree, but what I am saying is that I don't feel that the people that are recieving these gifts should be punished, scolded, harassed or whatever. Ketamine

'you contact = 'your contract', sorry. Personally, I think it's possible to get too pedantic and picky about it. Trawling the galleries for potential pirates is probably going too far. However, as my job now involves dealing with software licensing and auditing on a daily basis I'm having to wear the 'things have to be done this way despite any personal feelings to the contrary' hat more and more often. :^p

sorry, the last comment was posted in responce to Carolly. Ketamine

Well, I'm just saying that you can feel free to pass on things you bought from me, even if you noly useit once and someone else only uses it once. I'm not speaking for anyone else, I'm just saying that you CAN hand-me-down my products, and providing a legal way you can do it despite the licence. That's the specific permission as copyright holder that I granted above. warez kiddies swapping music after they listened to it once To be honest, hauksdottir, I don't think this is a good example. I, for one, do not feel any inclination to pay for music if I never want to hear it again. I don't believe CD purchasing should be a gambling activity. Of course, at the same time, if I don't ever want to listen to it again and I think it sucks, I have no inclination to give it to anyone else for fear they might play the noise where I can hear it.

To Ketamine: I understand what you are saying, however, nowhere in the original post did Cruelty mentioned being harassed, scolded, punished, etc. So I dont understand why you are under this impression. To HaiGan: "Trawling the galleries"?? As a merchant, I am quite thankful for those people who use our products, and to show that thanks, we go through the galleries posting our comments on those images. I cannot speak for all the merchants, but Im sure many do the same. Fyrene

and to show that thanks, we go through the galleries posting our comments on those images. I cannot speak for all the merchants, but Im sure many do the same. I'm grateful to anyone who uses my work and posts it, particularly when done well. However, I specifically DON'T post comments on images using my stuff for two reasons: 1) It seems cheesy somehow 2) I don't like all the images. Even if I posted comments on the ones I liked and remained silent on others it would be obvious usually. Fact is, I'm not going to lie and say I like something when I don't, and I'm not going to conspicuously omit anyone when I don't like it either, so I dno't say anything to anyone, as to avoid offending someone being left out. If that makes sense.

I perhaps didn't phrase that 'trawling the galleries' post too well, Fyrene. As Dodger said, it is always nice to see when people have used my own (free) stuff in images, so I'm pretty sure a lot of people producing models for free or for sale must feel the same way. The new facility to add credits gives an easy way for any merchant to check for images using their products (providing people remember to add credits), and once or twice I've had merchants popping by to comment on credited work- thank you to those who have, I appreciate it. I've nothing against people keeping an eye on the galleries just out of curiosity to see who's made use of something. I'm also not critisizing people who spot a product (or an image, for that matter) that has been deliberately pirated. I have every sympathy for merchants who have seen their work stolen and watched others making money out of the theft. I DO, hoever, think it's going over the top to scrutinise every single picture that appears for any and every sign of potential piracy. That way lies paranoia. Hope that makes my point somewhat better!

...and at the risk of monopolising the forums (it's okay, I'll shut up after this unless there's a really good reason to post again), in the light of this thread I'll be rewriting my readme files on all my freestuff items to allow the downloaded copy to be passed as a gift to a single other user. The non-redistribution clause was intended to disallow posting the files for public download at another site. I had, I admit, overlooked the possibility of someone downloading on behalf of someone else, and personally I have no problems with an individual passing on a freebie they are never going to use again themselves, as long as the package stays complete with its readme.

HaiGan: You might want to look into some of the existing Open Source licenses. As a Perl user, I particularly like the spiritof the Perl Artistic Licence, and despite it's origins it can be used for any sort of electronic content. The GPL is popular, though it has several known flaws. Any of them, however, serve as a good basis for allowing redistribution requiring the license and copyright notices to be included with each copy given. While this doesn't force users to a certain place to download (and thus limits the amount of traffic focus) this can be overcome with things like simple support and discussion group scripts at your site to allow users to interact about your products, which provides ample opportunity to advertise the non-free stuff. Some quick modifications of Open Source licenses can easily set up a scenario in which a person could use your work as a basis for free development provided that the result remained free as well. Several OPen Source licenses have this clause already included. And it takes very little effort to include a clause or just a word or two that make it so that you can include a little 'Ad Sheet' in the package that must be distributed with the rest of the package. Of course, some people will ignore this, but some people will ignore a no-redistribution clause too. But in the case of having a fairly easy redistribution method that is acceptable and carries information you want with it, you have another advantage: propagation without use of your bandwidth. If you use an installer executable, you can even launch both the license and the 'Ad Sheet' at the end of the installation process. And you can set the license to require the installer be used to redistribute. On that line, does anyone know of a good and easy installer-maker?

If you buy some of my products you can do anything you want with it.

Quick note - if you are going to supercede the 'rosity license (and wasn't that brought up once before in conjunction with an artist changing the license unfairly?) you should note that in your product description and offer it as readable. I'm not even sure it actually does supercede the 'rosity license (due to the previous discussion on this). The only license that we agree to is the one presented at time of purchase. I thought that the previous discusssion on the dual license stated that vendor's could not overwrite the 'rosity license, or could in certain conditions only. Anyhow - my point was - could you not title the readme or license as "readme" or "license"? Because let's face it the reason Cruelty can't find out who owns what for many of the products is because the readme's overwrite each other. Perhaps a standard note regardign transfer of ownership, contact the creator blah blah blah in the readme would suffice.

"Perhaps a standard note regardign transfer of ownership, contact the creator blah blah blah in the readme would suffice."

I am the typo queen today.... every post I've made contains out of control typos - must get more coffee....

I didn't see the previous discussion, but Renderosity doesn't hold copyright on any merchant product, so their license cannot supercede a merchant's license on his own product. Renderosity is only a consignment shop. They sell our stuff for a cut of the profits. Transfer of ownership decisions can only be made by the copyright owner, so it would be up to the creator to include that clause in the product-specific readme if he or she so chose. And even if the note is NOT included, all you have to do is ask the creator of the product. Contact information is in the Readme. If you have the original zip file downloaded from Renderosity, the ReadMe is in it (and probably has a name specific to the product, like "README-Goroth"). It's a requirement to include a ReadMe, and it's easy to find. If you can't find the readme, do a search for the product using the Renderosity search engine. If the product is still available, even if it's really old and buried on page 50 of the Victoria products, it will come up in the search results, and you can view the ReadMe via the ReadMe link on the order page. On the order page, there's also a direct link to the Merchant's Artist page, where you can IM or email. If the product is no longer listed and you don't know the maker, contact Renderosity for product support contact information. They'll have the info.

The original discussion I refer to was in regards to the merchant's agreement with 'rosity. Yes they get a cut of the profits - but merchant's have toa bide by certain rules as well. I know that it was stated that if you superced their license then you need to state so openly and state the changes. What had happened was people bought a product by a well known creator who altered her license stating something like that the product couldn't be used in commercial images and that she had to be credited each and everytime the product was used in an image. Needless to say they all wanted their money back. But a merchant agrees to the 'rosity license themself when selling here.

I'm not a lawyer, but itgenerally seems to me that it's likely that if a merchant provided a seperate license, and the Renderosity license ws included and agreed to by the merchant as verified by the upload process, then, any place the two conflicted, the point more beneficial to the consumer wuold take precedence. In other words, if I include in a seperate licence that the product may be handed-down and that you additionally have to mark 'Dodger' visibly on any render with the product, then the former would be true, as it grants an extra right to the consumer, but the latter would not as the Renderosity licence grants a more liberal usage. However, if the second licence granted certain rights in return for certain restrictions, then the user would be bound by the Renderosity licence unless he or she chose to take advantage of the additional rights granted by the secondary licence, at which point the second licence would take hold as a result of an implicit agreement entered into by taking advantage of the special considerations granted by the second licence. In such a case, the aforemeentioned licence would be worded slightly differently, but the idea would be that at such time that the item was 'handed-me-downed', the new recipient would have to include the word 'Dodger' visibly on each render in return for having a licence to use the content transferred to them, but the initial owner wuld never need to do so as they could operate solely under teh Renderosity licence until they handed the item down to someone else, an act which would call the second licence into effect.

Ahhh. I can see where that might be a problem if the merchant changed it to be more restrictive. Speaking as a merchant, I agree to the license insofar as my own license must be at least as liberal as the required license, allowing for commercial usage and limiting redistribution, and such. I can be MORE liberal if I choose, though. Just like I can add stuff to my package, give freebies and be as generous as I choose, but I can't take back any portion of the package from my buyers, I can add goodies and give freebies (so to speak) in my licence, but I can't rescind the benefits that have already been granted. Transfering ownership from ONE individual to ONE other individual, IMPO, is NOT redistribution or piracy, so wouldn't fall under that clause anyway.

I typed up a long response but I guess the system ate it. I want to thank everyone who responded, between this discussion and some research I did on my own (check out the debate on reselling e-books, I have to say my awareness has been raised on this issue. I all ways thought that licensing issues on software were there to protect the creator from piracy and other legal concerns. I now understand that in many cases they are worded to remove the consumers rights, rather than protect a creator from theft or damages. Let me give you an example, I own a copy of Stephen King's the Stand. I know that I cannot take what he has written from the book and present it as mine. I can't photocopy it and give the copy away or sell it because it is Stephen King's copyrighted material. However, Mr. King cannot stop me from re-selling the copy I paid for, or keep me from lending it out or giving it away. Licensing however changes the game. If I licensed my copy of the Stand with a Renderosity style (or standard software) licensing agreement,Mr. King or his legal instruments could keep me from re-selling it or giving it away. And the best part is I would have to agree to giving up my consumer rights, before I could even crack the cover to see if it was worth reading. Pretty dumb on the consumers part, huh? Some of you probably already knew this, and think I'm pretty silly for just now getting it, but I never thought the intent of a licensing agreement was to screw me out of my rights. -Not saying the merchants are intentionally doing this but thats pretty much what a licensing agreement does. I applaude those vendors who say that it is okay to do a one time legal transfer of their material, if the original file is deleted ect. I've got a lot more investigating and reading to do before I decided what exactly this means to my poser habit, but it is a bummer to know that legal it would be impossible to recoup part of my 'investment' should I ever choose to get out of the poser game.