We have a wonderful Vue community here and i am very glad i joined it. But there is one issue which bothers me lately. While most artists here take great care to give credits, some don't. I urge you, i BEG you people: Do it. Anyone who has ever tried to do some modeling knows the time and effort it takes. Those cars, trains, houses or plants that you drop into your renders were painstakingly created by someone who was generous enough to share them. In a way, that someone is a co-artist in your own works. He/she deserves credit! So if you picked something from the free-stuff area and you don't remeber who made it, take those extra five minutes to go back there and look it up. If you got it from a website then mention it. Please, lets make this community as ethical as we can! And thanks for reading this through the end :)

Ever since I started making models I try and give credit where it is due. Some times however on some of the models I collected in the beginning I have forgotten where and who has made them. I think if we all at least try to give some credit it will help. Thanks for posting this. Regards, `shoop PS: and some times I just want to know where I can get the model to try for myself.

Dear E.D. You and me we know each other since 6 years and I agree with you. Before you (re-)joined our group, I had to take off at least 2 images from people who used (i.e.) your bridge and presented it as their own. Just a sample... Other members uses mine and presents it as their own. Always the same members, always the same "pain in the neck!!!!". We know who they are. Copyright is not only a therm but a rule to consider here at Renderosity. Thanks for speaking about it. Hopefully, some concerned members will follow "THE RULES". Guitta

Since when giving credits has anything to do with copyrights ? Giving credits is a question of politeness. It should not become a rule or an obligation. There is a big leap between not giving credits to every single piece in a picture and claiming it is your own. False claims should be countered of course, but please, leave the credits up to the author of a picture. If I use a hundred props in a scene, I am still the author of that scene, not the individual authors of each prop that contributed to it. And if I do not give credits to the person who modelled that chair and table in the back of the scene, it is unfortunate but it is in no way a violation of copyright.

I'm sure we all agree that taking credit for someone else's work, or worse, trying to re-sell it, is deeply unethical and wrong. However, I've never downloaded a freebie or purchased a product which included a EULA that required me to give credit to the maker, at least not in the case of noncommercial work, which is all I do. There is one Renderosity merchant whom I'm told tried to do that until, on advice of her lawyer, she removed the "always give me credit" clause from her EULAs.

In sincere appreciation for Renderosity's generous hosting of our images in the galleries, I credit products I bought here, on the assumption that it might help with sales. I frequently credit the makers of free stuff if the items are available here, or if someone I know (especially from the Poser newsgroup, where we receive weekly freebies) made the item.

When Guitta refers to the rules, I assume she's referencing the sorts of TOS violations that she specified. I took erka's topic to be on a different sort of theme, more about giving credit where it's due than on the subject of serious copyright violations.

Renderosity's TOS do not require members to credit the makers of items they use in their art. It's a courtesy to do so, naturally, but failure to do so is not necessarily a sign of disrespect or lack of appreciation. As rds suggested, many of us acquire lots of items over time, so that even if one keeps all of the ReadMe files and EULAs, it can become very confusing to try to remember or determine who made what. Failure to credit the makers of legally obtained models, meshes, textures, etc. is not a violation of copyright or Renderosity TOS. Claiming they're your own creations is, and I'm very sorry to hear that this has happened to you both. I can't imagine how such people think that they can get away with that without others noticing. (I assume you're referring to your contributions to the CDs that come with VUE, forgive me if I'm wrong.)

Still, imagine going into an art museum and seeing attributions on the wall like "oil paints, gesso, and linseed oil by Artcom, brushes by John Doe, canvas and stretching donated by Jane's Frame Shop. Studio space rented from my landlord" etc. etc. Nobody expects such minutae in the nondigital art world ... the art is the thing, not whose products helped the artist to make it. We seem to be held to a more exacting standard by some in the digital realm, which in lieu of actual violations makes little sense to me.

However, I'm very grateful to people who provide freebies. I have nothing but admiration for people who can model, something I still haven't taught myself to do, beyond simple boolean-modified primatives. However, if I download something from Free Stuff, don't use it for several months, and then do so as a small detail in one of my renders, any failure to name the provider shouldn't be taken as the result of a bad attitude or a lack of ethics.

erka wrote: "In a way, that someone is a co-artist in your own works." You are absolutely correct, and this is something that's been very much on my mind lately, since I lack the skills to make everything myself. Although my response might sound defensive, I do agree with erka and will try to do a better job in the future of crediting the co-artists who make free items. Again, though, when I purchase something, I've purchased license to use it without naming the creator, unless their EULA very specifically says that I must.

Giving credit is a courtesy, not a rule.

Yes, I wondered how this went from credit to the artist for his free models and scenes to copyright law. To take one of your free models and call it your own is Plagiarism right up there with stealing but it is not copyright infringement. I have been guilty of not giving enough credit to the artist in the beginning days but now I understand the rules very well and do my best to follow them as I think most of do. However once you start making models you realize how much work goes into each and everyone that it becomes more important to give due credit. I will make an increased effort to give more credit where needed although it is a pain. Heck the reason I started making my own models is so I wouldnt have to look up whos model I used LOL. I love our community and common courtesy should be respected here and every where for that matter. Thanks for reading. `shoop

I've made and given away several free models and thousands of my images in the last several years. I know when people have used my stuff in their work when I run across it on a web page or in the gallery and that's credit enough for me just knowing they thought enough of the work to use it.

I think that if a person takes credit for creating a model they didn't create, they ought to be 'outed' by the model maker, but ONLY if the model maker cares to do so. It's not anyone elses right to do so.

I think it is unfair to criticize folks that do not give credit unless your terms of use specifically state they must and it was your items they used and they failed to credit you. Then it is something to discuss with the person directly, not to take them to task in a public forum.

With the way the web is, how do you know where they got that model and what was said in any readme file with the model? A person has no real way of knowing who is the original creator of a model, so anyone taking your work and redistributing it with new terms is as authentic as you are to the downloader.

I don't have to give credits to William Alexander or Bob Ross when I use their paint, brush and canvas kits, even their manual instructions to do an oil painting. They provided the tools, I did the composition. Models, textures, poses, lights, they are tools in my opinion. Even images, when they are rendered objects designed for and given away to use as compositing images are tools, even if they can be called art when viewed as is.

I've asked people not to give credits when using my stuff. I'm mortified when I run across some image that has my stuff that been altered or used in a way I find embarrassing and I don't want my name to be associated with it.

I can ruin a perfectly good prop or figure by rendering it in the wrong light or scenario, I'm not so sure that's the kind of advertising model makers really want. I know I don't.

Sometimes I'm quite painstaking in enumerating credits for everything I use in my images that aren't included in Vue (not talking about the extras CD), or included by me. However, more and more I'm cutting the list down by thanking the creators. If people what to know who made exactly what, they are welcome to IM me. I agree with above statements that credit is a courtesy, not a requirement. I try to be courteous when thanking people who have made items for sale and especially for free, but sometimes I forget something or can't find the readme. As for the suggestion that I surf all over the web to try to find an item I may have downloaded a year ago and lost the readme to, I just don't think that's practical. Anyhow, I am extremely grateful to all those who share their modeling and texturing efforts and talents with us, especially for free!! You all are the best!

I also try and credit people for things I use in my image no matter if it's bought or it's free, but I know I miss things and like some have said when you have a ton in an image it can get a bit silly. I also never download freebies that have any restrictions on them, since I know I'll forget down the road. One thing I've often done is write the artist and thanked them personally for the model. Without the freebies I'd be royally screwed sometimes. I seem to always need something obscure. I once had a background I had made in Vue, claimed as their own and said it was created in bryce. So, I know how annoying that can be. I wouldn't have thought anything about it if he hadn't said anything at all about the background, but claiming it as his own work annoyed me. I might miss people in my credits, but I won't claim any model that isn't mine. Credit and copywrite two difference things.

I think some distinctions should be made here. I never claimed not crediting is "illegal". I was merely refering to the ethical side of it. 3D as a form of art is relatively new, and as such poses new ethical questions. I absolutely do not agree with the "brushes and paint" alegory. A Vue artist's brushes and paint are the program itself and its tools. A car one adds to its render is not tool, it is a complete model, a finished work done by somebody else. Now i know that many times it is hard to find out who did it, and that sometimes it is simply impossible to give the right credit. But i do insist that whenever possible, a credit should be given. Now what Gebe mentioned is a far more serious issue. Those scenes on the Vue CD are there as examples for exploration and study. I personally discovered at least 3 images at the gallery which where not much more than my own scenes from that CD, a little modified, different camera angle, some objects added or deleted, etc.. This is pure violation of copyright law. No one would like to see his/her works of art displayed under somebody else's name. I believe this was done with no bad intentions, but it simply should not be done, and such images should be removed by the administrators.

This is one of the reasons that I am scared to death to post anything. Between the nasty comments by lurkers, the fact that I don't know where I got every single prop I might use, folks "stealing" artwork, and all the other written or perceived rules, I just can't bring myself to share like I would like to. It feels like I've spent more time trying to learn everything there is to know about creating digital art, (various software packages, object creation, texturing, lighting, posing, digital photography, copywrite law, nudity guidelines, violence guidelines,....), than actually creating anything. There are tons of ready made resources out there, but if I take advantage of them, it's like I'm being told that the artwork really isn't mine any more, but some derivative of the stuff I used, whether free or purchased. Absolutely no disrespect meant to anyone, just my thoughts/opinions.

"But i do insist that whenever possible, a credit should be given." Well, I'll assume that English is not your native tongue or you would realize how authoritarian you sound. You should never have allowed Eon to include your scenes with Vue if you didn't expect them to be used. They are supposed to be a learning experience. Some people don't know how to let their children go. Please speak only for yourself, not for anyone else who makes models and stuff.

Spit, english is not my native tongue, and i am truly sorry if i sounded authoritarian to you. I speak only for myself, i never claimed to represent anyone else but myself. I think i have the right to express my opinion. And i sincerely believe that giving credits is important, and that it bothers me that some people ignore that issue. That's all. About the second part of your argument, well, wether it was wise to give E-on my scenes is realy my own dillema. But that doesn't mean people can take somebody elses work and claim it is their own. I am sorry, but i don't see your point here.

LEt me speak for me and my freestuff: Use it as you see fit, don't sell it and give credit if you happen to remember that it is my freestuff. If you can't remember: No problem. Actually I can't understand this greed for credits, that is so common here on Renderosity. I am not doing my stuff to receive credit. When I am doing freestuff, I do so because I was asked by someone, who needed something or I do so, because I can use it myself - and hey: Why keep it for myself, if all I need to do is post it? But I have the distinct feeling, that some of us are in it for the fame. Please be realistic: With the amount of freestuff around, I can't expect people to remember the creators of every little peace of freestuff. I can't ask people to keep all those read-me's - unless I give them a new hard-disk just for that reason. It is nice to receive credit - but it is not that important. I am happy to see someone using something I created - but I really do not need to be praised for it. Joerg

Well I try to give credit for most things I do. Sometimes it really can be a pain trying to track down or remember where each last object came from. Other times it is as easy as using the DAZ rubber stamp. :) Leave one person off by accident and they may feel offended you metioned everybody else but them.

The thing though, how many other mediums do we see this in? I don't see photographers doing stuff like "Car by ford. Jacob Construction of building in the background. Rayban shades. Franco jewelers for ring" and on and on. How many painters credit dole or sunkist for the fruit still lifes? Movies list certain things, but they certainly don't credit every last object they show.

I am not saying that we shouldn't do it. I am just saying that there is no real background of doing such credit giving. After all, is a vitual bowl more worthy of credit than a real pottery bowl? :)

But then again, this is a new world. Before now, we really haven't had a platform where we were able to show off our general work to everybody and credit them. Should we now do it because we can, or do we not do it because people never really bothered to do so before. Really, in the end, it is up to each one of us to decide that. :)

Erka..I'm sorry if I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about everybody's work, not just your own. I usually give credit for the major elements in my scenes. But if it's something well known, like the Gremlin for example I may omit it. To me giving credits is a courtesy. There are many freestuff givers who do NOT require or even request it. The courtesy is just as much to the viewer who might like to find the object for themselves. The minor elements I usually ignore, depending on the uniqueness of the object. If I purchase something, I feel under no obligation to give credit. It seems you're expected to give it here because of sales. My work just becomes an advertisement then. Sigh. re the scenes with Vue. I don't think anyone should claim them as their own, but I think the feeling might be that since they came with Vue they are free to be used while they're learning. The assumption is that everybody already is aware the scenes came with Vue.

It seems to me that erka is getting some unfair verbal stick here, I read nothing authoritarian in the words, it sounds like a reasonable request to me. I found when I first started that it was easy to forget where I got textures from if I just stuck them in a folder labelled textures, I have not got round to learning to create all my own textures yet. I realised that those free textures must be important to me, and if so I have a moral obligation to find a way of remembering. The simple way was to create a new folder with the name of the website the texture was downloaded from, then when I move it into Vue or other graphics program, I just add the name of the website to the texture name, no great hassle. I have only used about one free model in the images I have done but the same procedure applies, a folder with the website or creators name on it, if I consider it worth using then I owe the person that kindly gave it a credit. I consider everybody who assists me in creating my image whether by tutorials, free stuff or purchased items are partners in the creation, why would I use these additions to my art if I was capable of doing all of it myself. Even programs are important to mention, look at the excellent Wings 3d, totally free and a wonderful program created by Bjorn, who spends endless time on it, if he can spend all that time for no returns, doesnt he deserve credit. As far as taking items out of the Vue example images is concerned, I consider that taboo, in my book they are on the CD to assist you to understand how to compose images, not to plunder for free stuff. There are far too many taking particularly free stuff for granted, that it may just end up with fewer people being prepared to supply it. I frequently dont bother to comment on images if I have no clue of what was created by the image creator and what by others, how do I know which is the image creators input, I have seen some images that would have been nothing without freestuff. I dont supply any freestuff in case anybody wonders if I have a personal axe to grind. To answer Joerg, its not about fame, its just thanking people for their help, and there is far too little of that in the world today. Dave

I had not seen the message from Nightvoice when putting on my last message. There is a difference between a painter actually painting an item and sticking a ready made textured item into a computer graphics program. Dave

Yes, but there is also a difference between artistA using a texture and artistB using the same one.

Is "free stuff from Vue CD samples" good enough or we need to specifically pinpoint the author? My problem with that is I do not know if the models are really theirs or also free stuff or bought from somewhere. I guess each time I use models from the samples that are not Vue native objects I should include the title of the scene like "pirogue from amazon scene by John Doe: Vue CD samples 2". I think if I use a model in my scene it is a compliment even if I had not credited whoever as I am not claiming it to be mine - the concept of the scene is mine. But if I retextured it and do some nifty tricks on the model and claim it as mine that is something else. I still believe this Vue galleryforum is the best 3D place to hang around and Guitta is doing pretty excellent job of making our place neat and tidy. Let's render more !!!

I am glad this subject came up, I made my first picture recently using Vue, I use Bryce mostly. One of the reasons I created the picture with Vue was because there was a shark scene, it was useful for a picture I wanted to create. I deleted the sharks and altered the angle of the lights for the effect I wanted. I just thought if it was on the Vue CD, it was there to be used. But after reading the posts here I didn't realise this was a point of major debate. I think most people who purchase Vue for the first time would think the scenes are part of the Vue product which they bought. Peter

I appreciate it when people post a link to an item used in the picture. Who knows, I may want to buy it, or have found some really cool sites from the credits. Thanks to all of you who make the items and those who tell us where you got them!

Yes I would agree with you Spit, but the presentation of the textured item in the image it is used in is a purely a subjective thing, depending on the viewers opinion. I dont understand how that ties in with the difference between a painter painting an item from scratch and somebody including a ready-made item. The latter is like a painter sticking a cut out photo of his item on the canvas. I dont for a minute decry the use of ready made stuff I wouldnt use Vue if I did, but some credit for the end result of the image goes to the Vue creators for the trees and other items in the program, and any extra pre-made items you use. We all have the choice if we want complete credit for everything in our images, thats to learn something like Lightwave, C4D etc, or paint it all to 3D standard in a 2D program. Dave

Wow, this is an interesting thread. Tough subject! As a relative new-comer to digital art, I've had numerous thoughts pass through my head on this subject. I'm not really presenting any answers her, just food for thought. So what follows are only personal observations and feelings and are in no way meant to disrespect or belittle anyone else's work.

That said, personally, I have a apprehensions with collecting a bunch of free, ready-made models, Poser figures/clothes/poses, textures, atmospheres, and presenting the rendered assembly as 'MY' work. If I need a model/prop/texture for my image, I feel a better sense of artistic integrity if I at least try to create it myself. However, I, and many others, don't have the skills or tools to model a human being, animals, and many other things. So it is almost essential that to some degree, someone else's work will be included in one's render at some point. There's nothing wrong with that, but I don't feel comfortable presenting an element I did not actually have a hand in creating as my own.

I also do not agree with the brushes/paint comparison stated previously. Those are tools, and regardless of the tools, a painter and their skills are responsible for creating everything in the image presented on their canvas. Not so with the 3D digital art being discussed here. A more realistic comparison is with sampling in music. If a rap artist samples a Van Halen guitar lick off a CD and includes it in their own work, should a credit to Van Halen be given? Well, I think so.

But how far does that philosophy go? You have to find the line between your tools and your content. I mean, someone had to create the plants, trees, textures, atmospheres, included within the VUE program (not speaking of the extra sample scenes). But do we give credit for each of those things? That would be a bit extreme and absurd. Going back to the music comparison, that would be the same as a keyboardist giving credit to everyone who recorded piano, trumpet, and violin samples for their internal keyboard sounds. In this case, just saying you used VUE, or Poser, is enough.

On the other hand, an argument could be made for photography: Should the photographer be expected give credits for each specific element included in the photo they happened to shoot? Obviously not.

Every individual is going to have their own opinions about where to draw the line between what's their own work and someone else's; between creating a piece and just 'assembling' it from other's work. I'm just grateful that there is such an amazing amount of resources available on the web for digital artists, and I'm grateful for the people who created them. I'd feel honored if someone else used my work within their own. But I'd also like it to be acknowledged. So I'll always do the same for others whenever it's possible/practical.

There is a difference here that I think is being missed. It is not necessary to give credit for everything in the image, whether you originally made it or not. It is only a courtesy (unless it is required via a license agreement). And what seems to be missed is that if you DON'T give credit, some are assuming that means you are claiming you made the stuff. And that's simply not true. You can claim copyright on your image, whether you made all the stuff that shows in it or not. (As long as you have the right to use the stuff.) The finished render IS your work legally. Philosophically may be another story ;-)

erka: "I never claimed not crediting is 'illegal'." No, you didn't. It was clear to me what you meant. It was someone else who sort of took your theme and ran off in a different direction. My response was mostly to that person's, as I assumed was obvious.

"I absolutely do not agree with the "brushes and paint" alegory."

Oh well. :-) The point was that tools are a means to an end. Do you find credits for the nails, paint, and windows in your house? Of course not. I supported your original point, and don't see the use in picking nits over metaphor. This is getting silly, and backfiring, unfortunately. My response was articulate and respectful in tone.

I obey the rules. I have a good heart. I'm a basically respectful person. I thank feestuff providers in the galleries, in the forums, and in private communications for their generosity. I guess I'll just keep doing what I do. :-)

I appreciate that some people in this thread responded with clear-mindedness.

To give credits has something to do with copyright in the following case: Some of us have given scenes to e-onsoftware for the CD. These scenes belongs always and however to the artist and the artist is the copyright holder of the scenes. E-onsoftware puts these scenes on the CD to allow users to learn, to study how such a scene were created and to help you to develop your own technique. It is OK to use the objects from the Objects folder on the CD, but it is NOT ok to use one of the scenes created by some one else, change the camera angle or add two trees and then present it as your own work. I think in this case you need to give credit in saying that the original scene from (name of the artist) has been modyfied by you. Here it is not any more a "give credit or not" question, but a copyright problem. And as erka pointed up the "credit" question, I had to add this copyright question. Of course, this is my personal opinion, you's may be different:-). Guitta

I would say that Eonsoftware need to clear this up, if someone submits a scene for Eonsoftware to sell with their product....it is natural the person purchasing the product is going to think, thats ok, it's part of the product and it's ok to use....just like Poser models or Bryce skies. I suppose those who worked on those products employed by those companies didn't expect a credit everytime somebody used their sky or mesh. Their credits came up everytime you load up the product and list of names appear. Does this happen for those who create the scenes for Vue? if not they should....because their work needs to be recognised if it's going to be marketed as part of the product...well it seems that way. If I submitted a scene for Eonsoftware to use for their cd I would expect payment for it and also give up any rights I had on the scene. It would no longer belong to me because it's now part of the Eonsoftware product, but I should expect Eonsoftware to credit my work. As an outsider who has only dabbled abit with Vue, this situation doesn't look good. The subject of credits for scenes should be cleared up by Eonsoftware. Peter

...If I submitted a scene for Eonsoftware to use for their cd I would expect payment for it...

I agree with you, Guitta, that taking the image and putting your own name on it is wrong. That's copyright violation, plain and simple. But as far as the scenes on the Extras CD, where the Samples etc. are, nothing I read in the Vue manual or anywhere in those folders does it say that textures/models are prohibited from use. If in fact those textures and models are copyrighted as not for use by people who legally buy the software, E-on should make that explicitly clear. Quite honestly, since it is not stated anywhere that I can find, I have always assumed that those items can be used (although not claimed as my own created texture, for example) in images I make. The difference with your example would be this: 1. Person A takes your scene, changes camera angle, maybe one material, and posts it as their own. That's not right. 2. Person B takes your scene, looks at it, sees a material (not a default Vue material) they would like to use in a completely different scene they have constructed. Is that wrong? It is not prohibited or stated as wrong in any Vue documentation?

In the sample scenes are included objects from cacheforce, dedicated digital, daz, and curious labs. Are you claiming them? EON says nowhere that these are sample scenes for study only, hands off. No, I don't think someone should load up a scene, render, and call it their own. But I can see someone loading up a scene and retaining a terrain, or saving materials for later use and tweaking, and saving objects for use in other scenes. Surely EON gave you some type of agreement when you submitted your scenes? If so, maybe you should make it public.

Crossposted with Djeser.

What I spoke about was, that here at Renderosity gallery we have deleted 4 or 5 images that were scenes by erka, Mitch, Stephan Belin and myself, where users had just changed camera angle and added or deleted an object, then presented the image under their own signature. If a user only takes an object (or objects) that comes with the sample scenes to build their own images, that's completely OK. Personally I'm even happy if they do so, because this means that they liked the object:-). Maybe it is clear now what I wanted to say? :-)Guitta

BTW on the Vue CD erka = Eran Dinur

First of all i would like to apologize again to anyone who was offended by anything i said. English does not come naturaly to me, i am translating from my own language, and i guess it sounds a bit harsh to some. I do not mean to offend, and i respect all that has been said here, wether i agree with it or not. I'll try to refer to that Vue CD issue from my own personal point of vue: at the time, E-on asked me to include some of my models in the objects folder on the CD. One of those objects for example was the Angel fish (Scalar). Since then i have seen it in many many images here, and i am very happy to see it used, sometimes in wonderful images. I never asked for credits on this one, because nowhere is it written that i am the modeler of that object. Since e-on included some of my images on the examples CD, they asked me to add the scenes too. my understanding was that those scenes will serve Vue begginers as learning tools. Maybe i was naive, but i never thought people will use parts of those scenes for their own images. Now, if somebody takes an object or two, that's fine with me. But the images i talked about in my previous post were done by taking virtualy the whole scene, with some minor changes. I am not talking law here, i am not talking rules, i am just talking common sense. I mean, my name is clearly written on these images and scenes! Why on earth would somebody want to do that? It looks to me like disregard for the original artist's feelings. So all i am saying is, no matter what the law says, there is a minimum of ethical integrity that we all need to use...

I just read Gebe's last post and she says what i tried to say in less words and better coherence...:)

Yes! Now I understand! I agree!

Ditto.

If people are trying to pass off somebody elses work as their own then I'm not surprised their work is deleted. But it would also seem that Vue is passing off the scenes as part of their product. If somebody takes a scene and changes it completly and putting their own original ideas in, to me this is ok....and this is what I understood that the scenes were for, individuals can take them to pieces and reassemble them and make them into their own scenes. But if there are all kinds of strings attached then really this should be addressed by Vue so there is no confusion. People like me who purchase the product for the first time, don't really know what agreement individuals have made with regard to scenes on the cd. It would be good if Vue could let us know where they stand on this. Peter

You can use the scenes included with Vue as you see fit, but you should have the courteousy to credit the authors of the original scene, especially if the modifications you made to the scene are only minor. Steve

Thanks Steve:-)

I still find I am left with a question regarding the example images. When I first had Vue I used the example pictures to assist me to understand the way Vue pictures were assembled, I realised when you rendered them that Vue plants that did not come with the program were not in the images and it just rendered black. My opinion at the time and has been up to now that as it didnt state you could use the content, then you probably couldnt, I approached it obviously from the opposite direction to many. My other reason was that some of the models if not the image creators own copyright, may well be copyrighted to the original supplier, if a figure, it might be Poser or other, and any other model may also have a copyright separate from the image creator. Am I right in presuming then that e-on get clearance on copyright regarding all models contained within example images, so that the program user could not find themselves in breach of copyright laws. Dave

Thanks Steve, thats how I see it too. Regards Peter

Please accept my apologies if I overreacted or appeared to. I fully agree with the essential message that Guitta, erka, and Steve have put forth, and will always comply. Erka, your English is very, very good. Better than many "native" English speakers I know. :-)

Thanks Xoconostle :)

I am curious about the credit thing. If you use mostly models created by someone else, including all the clothing and textures for a figure must you mention all the artists names (i.e., DAZ figures by brokers). The list could be quite long. I have checked out some 3D games like Nancy Drew games for instance. They use Poser figures including a certain model sold here at Renderosity (Enzio) that was used in one of their games. The artist's name was not mentioned, nor was DAZ for the other characters used in the game. And they're making money from it. I was also curious where some of the other models came from or if they were created on site at the company.

I used an image from the Vue CD as well for a college project with modification. I also didn't claim it as my own work of art either, but as a background I borrowed from another artist to use with actual photographs of people. I don't know if it was one modeled by erka or not, but it was one that shows up in the examples loaded with the program (if you install from the CD after clicking on it). I would think if these models can't be used, they shouldn't be included with the program. As someone mentioned, this may be an issue for E-on Software to resolve. I assumed the modeler was paid for the models and had forfeited the rights when it was sold with the program. I could be wrong on this. I would never think to sell the same geometry, but if there is no usage rights then what's the point of including it with the program at all. It is interesting, though, to learn from someone who is more advanced in modeling and perhaps learn from their art. I agree that reselling it as someone's own with modifications or "as is" woud be wrong.

Attached Link: http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6989&mode=thread&order=0

There is a clear guideline in copyrights:you can buy a piece of artwork in what media ever,but you're not allowed to change it or use it in a way the author has not licenced. Declaring a scene of somebody else as your own is a misuse. If you buy a painting and then you decide "oh,a green sky would be nice here,let's get some paint!",you are acting against international laws.The normal protection time for such cases is 72 years !!There is an old ,but still very true slogan for fine arts :"You can buy art,but you cannot own it ".Of course,not everything is art,but the licence agreements are the same, for the "Mona Lisa" or for a freebie from the download section.If the author tells you in the readme file ,that you don't have to give him credits, it is up to you to decide,but if it's written to give credits for using the item,you have to do so.Otherwise you act in an illegal way against license-laws !

I'm afraid I disagree. Copyrights are just that - the rights to make copies. Meaning - if you buy a painting, you cannot make copies of it and sell them as your own art. Wether you change the color of the sky has nothing to do with it. Now - there is a big difference between painting and 3d scenes. What is copyrighted with 3d scenes is the scene itself, the 3d models, the meshes... all the raw elements and the composition as a scene file. This means you cannot take a .vue file from the CD, tweak it a little bit, and post the .Vue file on your website for other to download. BUT - it does NOT mean you cannot take the scene, tweak it and make pictures out of it. What you created (the picture) is a different medium, to some extend it is your creation. Same thing when you buy a 3d model. Commercial restrictions apply to resale of that object as a 3d model but it does not apply to whatever picture you make of it.

I agree with you concerning the 3d area.But in combination with fine arts ,the situation is different:you may make a copy of a painting and change it to create a new one.But you are not allowed to change the original!That's international law for protecting art,which means,that you're not allowed to buy a Rembrant painting and put the image your face into the original.It's a quiete complex area,and not every country is willed or able to follow that inter- national agreement.But some courts have "special units" for that kind of stuff (at least here in europe).So let's say it is a question of authorship to a work,which stays protected for at least 72 years.Btw Bill Gates achived to protect his products that way....art?:))