Hi, Has anyone ever made a really great looking classic Juke Box? I've seen a few around but just texture-less 3DS files and things. I guess I'm too lazy to texture one. Seems like a really reflection-mapped chrome, bronze, copper, silver JUKE BOX with blazing multi-color lights and effects would make a great Model for Renderosity Store or Free Stuff. (Actually, I'm waiting for Lululee to finish her new "Swing Time" set based on PhilC's V3 SwingTime dress. Have some great illustration ideas for it!)

I wish I could model/create clothes...I would love to have a nice dance dress for ANY of the Vicky characters....Like the ones in those ballroom dance competitions they show on PBS. Yes, I do watch those ;)

I made one, it is in my sleasy diner kit though. but the kit comes with a pinball machine as well. http://market.renderosity.com/softgood.ez?ViewSoftgood=20509 image #2 shows it

Laverson that one looks real nice, but has more of a modern era look to it. I like the Sleazy Diner idea however. What you also need to offer, perhaps in Free Stuff, is a neon sign for your diner that says "EATS". I did find in my own collection a really nice looking 3DS jukebox (shows how organized my filing system is) that says "Wulitzer" on it and has all the classic bells and whistles (ruby red, gold trim, green-magenta neon, etc.) its very well done but absolutely no other info or readme.txt with it.- So I can't remember where it came from. It would be a REAL BEAUTY for someone to spiff-up for Poser, if someone could find the original model maker. I found that it did load nicely into Poser so I'm attempting to do some texturing on it since it has the "era" I'm looking for. (Maybe from 3DCafe?)

_dodger had a free jukebox at his site for a while, but it too was a more modern model.

The one I have now sure is nice. Whoever did it, did a nice job and knew what a 40's-50's era Wurlitzer jukebox looked like. I suspect it was done (the one I have) in 3DStudio, as it loaded perfectly with the correct group names. Too bad I don't know who did it. Probably made about 4-5 years ago in 3DStudio, I bet. I think I must have gotten it at 3DCafe, but I'm not sure. Great model. Ideal for a Poser prop.

Attached Link: My Homepage

ernyoka1, okay I'll be the bad guy.... just because there isn't a readme with a prohibition about redistribution doesn't mean that you can do it. The only person who can give permission for that is the original copyright holder or someone officiall acting on his/her behalf.

OK then. Anybody have any idea how to get hold of the creator?

Speaking of which... Can anybody get in touch with 3DCafe at all? All I get is "allmightysearch.crap" er well something like that...

Yes, that's the one! I will come to your defense, ernyoka1 and say that you have been honest in telling people the source of the object, and you have made an effort to contact parties involved, and aren't trying to make any money off it. Cooler, I'm sure, is legally quite correct, but this isn't a previously "for sale" type of model. It is certainly a gray area in this case, I think. My theory about this model is that it was made most likely by the people who make, or made, the original 3DStudio software, and distributed freely like the old classic Steam Engine and some other older 3DS models that show up around the internet. That's why its on the 3DCafe freebie website area. But other people should take Cooler's advice and be careful to not interpret this particular case as applying to other models on the internet. It's a very case by case kind of thing, I think. I think this is an old 3DStudio promo model.

Attached Link: http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

Still, being curious here... when it's a FREE item, how can anybody LOOSE anything by it's redistribution? It's not that I want to break the law but bona fide or not I can't see it's a crime to give away something that was allready free... The file inside the zip is dated 19-01-1996, in other words the file is 7 years old. Whoever created it did so in the times where the internet was still a source of mainly free stuff, especially in the way that if you uploaded something it was typically regarded Public domain, I know that all the stuff me and my friends made back then WAS indeed public domain and a lot of the old models I have are the same. Oh cooler, now that we're at the myths... DOES something like abandonware exist? Hmm and I STILL can't get into 3DCafe... I know I was there earlier today, when I downloaded this jukebox but the site seems to be quite dead... Is it a routing problem or can't anybody else access it either?

Oh just another thought.. If I encoded my version with that encoder pcf or whatever it's called... would it then be ok? In that case people would have to go to 3DCafe (which is down....) and download the original model, then decode my Poser version of it.

ernyoka1, yes the concept of "abandonware" is an urban myth. Copyright cannot be lost by not defending it (unlike trademarks). This from http://www.bloodletters.com/copyright.shtml... "Copyright is never accidentally lost. You don't have to worry about losing your copyright by not defending it, as happens with trademarks. You can only explicitly give it away, by selling certain rights to a publisher, or by releasing it to the public domain, which you do by explicitly stating on the document something like, "I hereby release this work to the public domain." And to address the question... "when it's a FREE item, how can anybody LOOSE anything by it's redistribution?" That's not something that you have the ability to decide, only the original creator can do that. But even setting that aside... free items are often used for purposes of advertising, drawing traffic to a site/store, or showcasing work (as in an online portfolio)

I wonder if this model could be ID'ed by some people at a 3DStudio users group someplace. I bet some 3DStudio old-timers probably could identify it and give you a better idea of what the model-maker's original intentions of use were. Again, I have a strong hunch that this model goes back to 3DStudio's MS-DOS days and was a freebie used at computer trade shows. I think I even remember this image being printed out on laser jets, inkjets and thermal type printers by CAD resellers and was pretty widely available. Obviously that doesn't decide specific usage rights according to the letter of the copyright law but if Ernyoka could obtain an email from someone from this ancient era she could keep it on file in case any questions were raised later.

Attached Link: http://www.wurlitzer-jukebox.com/museum.html

Still, being curious here... when it's a FREE item, how can anybody LOOSE anything by it's redistribution? Depends on the situation. If the website makes money in other ways and the distribution rights to the model draw traffic that leads to sales elsewhere on the site or links to places the individual or entity makes sales, then the redistribution of the model could theoretically reduce the number of sales by providing it and bypassing their rights to use it as a traffic-draw. Again, that entirely depends on the situation. If you were to redistribute my lightsabres pack, I couldn't do a damned thing in the way of legal restitution because while I do draw traffic and use the page to also advertise my marketplace items, I don't own a copyright on the original concept of a lightsabre and thus would not be able to do anything about it, except to get a cease and desist order. But if someone redistributed my bonfire prop, which I have removed partially because it drew sales away from my Dungeon Lighting Kit (both because it worked as an 'instead-of' and because the quality was much poorer), I could easily claim monetary damages. However, then I'd have to prove monetary damages, which means I would have to have figured that showed that at the time the redistribution occurred my sales dropped in such a way that there it can be believed beyond a reasonable doubt that the redistribution was the cause (i.e., if some other thing to cause a sales drop occurred simultaneously, it likely wouldn't fly). That's if I wanted restitution. A cease and desist court order is much easier to obtain. However, Cooler, I should point out that you are linking to and quoting laws that do not apply to TrekkieGirl. You're being Americentric. TrekkieGirl is subject to Danish copyright laws, if I'm not mistaken, so such things as good faith attempt to contact and an anonymous copyright holder might have entirely different legal precedents and definitions there. For all I or likely you know, the concept of 'abandonware' might even be a truth there, even though it's not one here. If someone wants to file a civil suit against a Dane, one has to file a Danish civil suit, and do so in accordance with Danish law. I'm not saying that TrekkieGirl doesn't have to worry about it because no one would bother approaching such an international suit over such a petty matter -- that's true, but that's not what I'm saying. Instead, I'm saying that we're quoting US law at someone outside the US Empire and not in a US occupied territory. Since this is not a DMCA criminal violation, and doesn't involve chewing Qat, we can't impose US law on her. I'd like to say we never can do so, but the occupation of Somalia and outlawing of Quat, and then later the case of Dmitri Skylarov where we apparently decided that what a Russian citisen did in Russia was somehow subject to the most dubious US law ever, has shown that at least in some cases the US considers itself an Earthwide government and that its laws apply outside its boundaries. Go figure. Trekkie, if you want to send me the jukebox mesh OBJ all on its lonesome, I'll be happy to trace the mesh and provide a brand new mesh that looks identical or better, just to make this a moot point. It's not like 3DCafe has a copyright on the design of a wurlitzer jukebox, after all (and that would be covered by design patent anyway, so not even Wurlitzer themselves would have a case).

_dodger, are you saying that chewing qat in Denmark can be prosecuted under american law?! LOL Not that I would like to, it looks yucky G All I know about danish copyright law is that the sign is utterly useless here. You can put it on your stuff but since you can't register it anywhere it doesn't matter if it's there or not. You still have copyright on things you create, I believe. Isn't tracing a mesh "illegal" too? As I understand it, DAZ prohibits tracing of their meshes. And yes, I was wondering if WURLITZER ever gave permission for a 3D model lookalike of their jukebox - or if it is needed at all, I remember you once said something about owning the copyright to a thing in its various instances - that a car and a 3D model of a car wasn't the same and wasn't covered by the same copyright...

dodger, Actually this discussion is all moot... ernyoka1 has decided to distribute the model regardless of legal or ethical compunctions. However, to answer your concerns about Danish vs US copyright law & all political arguments aside, Denmark is a signatory to both the Berne Copyright Convention & WIPO treaties, which agree to honor copyright laws across national borders and to enforce them just as if they were in their country of origin. In fact there is a current trend to standardize the law world-wide in order to make international prosecution easier. Even with that being said, Danish copyright law is essentially the same as US law in terms of what is covered (original works), when it is in force (upon creation), & how long the copyright endures (generally 70 years after the creators death). More importantly the concept of copyright (the ability of a creator to control his/her work) is identical. Finally, I couldn't find any specific exceptions for abandonware in Danish law or that making a "good faith" effort to contact a copyright holder would be a mitigating circumstance. It seems the only way to release a copyright is the same as in the USA, specifically place an item in the public domain, assign the rights to someone else or die & wait 70 years.

Isn't tracing a mesh "illegal" too? As I understand it, DAZ prohibits tracing of their meshes. Might be, if they had a copyright to the original shape being reproduced. But they don't. And yes, I was wondering if WURLITZER ever gave permission for a 3D model lookalike of their jukebox - or if it is needed at all, I remember you once said something about owning the copyright to a thing in its various instances - that a car and a 3D model of a car wasn't the same and wasn't covered by the same copyright... A car, as a functional device, cannot be copyrighted at all (though things like the logo on it and such can). Functional devices such as cars, jukeboxes, and so on, can have their general appearance protected under a degign patent, but a design patent prevent people from making the same sort of device with the same sort of look. A few years back Apple sued e-Machines for making a PC that looked a lot like an iMac, and got a cease and desist order in the US. They didn't get legal restitution, and that was Apple versus another big PC company. Just a cease and desist. That was a design patent case in pure form. Other ocmpanies have come up with things like toys that look like iMacs and cannot be limited by Apple because apple doesn't have a design patent against the look, only the look of a computer. A name for a car cannot be copyrighted as a single word or phrase does not count as a 'work' under copyright law. That would be a trademark, not a copyright, and unless they have registered a trademark for 3D models (rather unlikely) is probably not protected. Of course, as I said above, rules may vary from country to country slightly, though countries under the Berns convention should have very similar Berne Convention compliant copyright laws -- but the Berns convention didn't cover everything, and grey areas (YES, grey areas) are the places countries have to fill in the details or not. A logo can be copyrighted, even if it spells something out. For instance, I could write a book and mention The Wizards of the Coast, as a group of evil wizards who live on the coast of the Dagger Sea, and not be violating WoTC's IP rights because theyhave no copyright on the simple phrase. However, I could not use their stylized logo without their permission. That's copyrighted as a work of art, in this case graphic design. Further, I could not start a game company called 'Wizards of the Coast' or even anything close and potentially confusing like 'Wizards of the Coat' or 'Wizards of a Coast' (though I could probably get away with a parodical company called 'Lizards of the Coast'). However, I could start a surfboard company and call it 'Wizards of the Coast' despite WoTC's name because they are not in the business of selling surfboards or anything related, and such a company would not violate their trademark. So the next time you pass by a McDonald's Pub or something and wonder how they 'get away with it', well, that's how. So, no, wurlitzer doesn't have to give permission for someone to model their jukebox, Volkswagen doesn't have to give permission for you to model a beetle, and the local water and sanitation company doesn't have to give you permission to model a fire hydrant. However, DAZ does have the right to keep you from making Vicki because she's a made-up work of art for license. BTW, DAZ doesn't specifically say anywhere that you're not allowed to manually trace their meshes, though it can be assumed reasonably well that they do not want you to. DAZ does say you can't copy one of their meshes by any automated means, and they specifically mention stuff like shrink wrapping.

Cooler, I think you meant that she's decided to distribute the file regardless of legal or your moral compunctions. I find it somewhat distasteful when people insist that someone else is being unethical because the other person's decision doesn't satisfy the accuser's conscience.

Oh, and specifically the Berne Convention and WIPO treaties provide guidelines for copyright law and requirements for them to be compatible, but do not agree to follow copyright laws despite country or otherwise location. They agree to honour copyright, not copyright laws. Yes, to remain compatible with the conventions the laws are very similar, but no, the convention and treaty do not compel, for instance, the Danes to follow US copyright law. They follow Danish copyright law which is either Berne Convention compliant or Berne Convention Compliant With Reservations. Many countries do maintain reservations -- for instance, the UK has the right to renew an expired copyright as the property of the UK itself if they deem it a 'National Treasure', and such copyright does not ever expire, as with the works fo HG Wells. However, this has no bearing on the public dominion of many of Mr. Wells's works in the US and elsewhere. This is not compliant with the Berne COnvention or WIPO, but the UK maintains that reservation regardless and otherwise generally remains BC compliant. Most countries disregard the US's DMCA, and rightly so as the act actually violates a licensor's copyright in many cases, which is again not Berne Convention or WIPO compliant as it removes or restricts the fair use rights of a copyright licensor as provided for in both the aforementioned conventions. Since the US enforces the DMCA, it is also Berne Convention compliant with reservations. IANODL (I am not a Danish lawyer), but I'd reckon that if two glaring BC reservations such as this stand out from two of the most prominent signatory bodies of said conventions, there are very likely also Danish reservations or even simply specific definitions that the Berne convention does not clearly address (such as precisely how to approach the problem of the myriad works of Mr. Anon).

Attached Link: http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html

Actually both the Berne Convention & WIPO treaties do agree to honor member nations copyright laws. Articles 5, 6, & 6bis address this specifically. The salient passages from Article 5...

"(1) Authors shall enjoy, in respect of works for which they are protected under this Convention, in countries of the Union other than the country of origin, the rights which their respective laws do now or may hereafter grant to their nationals, as well as the rights specially granted by this Convention.

(2) The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights shall not be subject to any formality; such enjoyment and such exercise shall be independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work. Consequently, apart from the provisions of this Convention, the extent of protection, as well as the means of redress afforded to the author to protect his rights, shall be governed exclusively by the laws of the country where protection is claimed."

Additionally Article 7 specifically addresses the "problem of the myriad works of Mr. Anon"...

"(3) In the case of anonymous or pseudonymous works, the term of protection granted by this Convention shall expire fifty years after the work has been lawfully made available to the public. However, when the pseudonym adopted by the author leaves no doubt as to his identity, the term of protection shall be that provided in paragraph (1). If the author of an anonymous or pseudonymous work discloses his identity during the above-mentioned period, the term of protection applicable shall be that provided in paragraph (1)."

That's not what that says! Not how I read it anyway. I'm pretty good at interpreting legalese. Section 1 is stating that a Dane in America has the benefit of copyright protection to the fullest extent of American law despite being from Denmark and not a US citisen. Section 2 indicates that if the country of origin of the work is not a Berne Convention-subscribing country, the copyright holder will still have copyright within all the Berne Convention countries just as if they were a national of one of those countries. The laws under which said copyright is protected are the laws of the country in which suit is filed: the extent of protection, as well as the means of redress afforded to the author to protect his rights, shall be governed exclusively by the laws of the country where protection is claimed Section 3 there is there to address the Mr. Anon scenario, but doesn't really do so. Copyright is granted to someone for fifty years form the date of publication. However, for that someone to claim said copyright protection under the law, they must come forward claiming the copyright and thus gaining the normal period of protection. In other words, it's there in the law but it can't make any difference. It's a subroutine that will never run. All it really does in a practical sense is outline a time period before which ends the copyright holder must claim the copyright. And thus stop being Mr. Anon. If they do not claim copyright, they cannot file suit to protect the copyright. If they do not file suit to protect the copyright, there is no civil case. There has never, to my knowledge, been a case of An Anonymous Plaintiff v. Smith or any other such nonsense, at least in the US, despite how weird legal fictions can become. Though from what the clauses quoted seem to be indicating -- if the creator of the Wurlitzer Jukebox is anonymous, and it's less than fifty years form the date of publication, TrekkieGrrl can solve the problem quite elegantly (if unethically). Claim the copyright.

But IF I would claim the copyright to the original mesh (which I won't) wouldn't I have to somehow PROVE that I made it? Another thing is that I'm not sure whether or not I have the copyright on the POSER version of this jukebox. It wasn't Poser ready when I got it, and it is now. so I made it that. Or...?

But IF I would claim the copyright to the original mesh (which I won't) wouldn't I have to somehow PROVE that I made it? Not according to the above, at least until such situation as it is challenged. Then if you file it (you said you cannot file it in Denmark, but you could always file it in another country) or mail yourself a copy, you would have proof. Horrible, isn't it? Another thing is that I'm not sure whether or not I have the copyright on the POSER version of this jukebox. It wasn't Poser ready when I got it, and it is now. so I made it that. Or...? You certainly have copyright on the PP2 or CR2 itself. If you used embedded geometry (geomCustom) then you probably don't realistically have copyright on the geomCustom block. Or perhaps you do, but not on the mesh that it outputs. Actually, based on dealing with copyrights for games and such, that second thing would be right. Technically, there is no such thing as a mesh. There are only instructions for creating a mesh. You can copyright those instructions, but you seemingly cannot copyright a mesh because such a thing doesn't really exist. If you really wanted to get down and dirty with the law, embedded geometry in a PP2, a 3DS object, and a wavefront OBJect are all different sets of instructions that lead to the creation of very similar meshes, and would all be copyrighted differently. Just like US road maps. Very similar, but each map company has their own copyright on the map, and the results are that each one will tell you how to drive to Pismo Beach as long as you don't take the left turn at Albuquerque.

"will tell you how to drive to Pismo Beach" - step 1, buy amphibious car...

Not necessary if you're a rabbit. You can burrow under the ocean floor. Just don't take the wrong turn in Albuquerque.

Is that the one where Bugs meets the abominable Snowman?

dodger

Re: Berne Convention signatories enforcing each others copyright laws... yes you do read it wrong. There have been 2 different US involved cases of infringement which have been adjudicated along the Berne Convention guidelines because they were brought by foreign litigants.

Iter-Tass vs. Russian Kurier resulted from Kuriers alleged illegal use of Tass material in a Russian language newspaper published in the US. The case was filed with the 2nd Circuit Court & their ruling was that, although the infringement occurred here, both ownership & infringement were to be adjudicated by traditional use of Russian law. In fact the conclusion of the case is interesting in that it would have been different if tried exculsively under US copyright law.

Creative Labs vs Aztech Inc presents the same principles from the opposite situation. In this case the infringement took place in Singapore but the suit was filed in California. When Aztech moved to dismiss the suit under the principle of forum non conveniens, the Ninth Circuit Court agreed & determined that...

"The court further stated that it was aware of nothing that prevented the High Court of Singapore from applying United States copyright law to Creative's claims. The lack of extraterritorial reach of the Singapore Copyright Act should not impede the High Court from applying United States copyright law to the claims relating to the infringing acts abroad. The court asserted that it has recognized the potential of United States courts to entertain claims under the copyright laws of foreign nations; and therefore, if United States courts can do this, then the High Court of Singapore can do likewise"

Regarding anonymous litigants, whether or not you find it ridiculous, the legal appellation is "John Doe" & there are numerous examples of that name being used to represent either an anonymous plaintiff or defendant.

ernyoka1,

You have no claim of copyright under any circumstances because you didn't obtain permission from the original modeller, or even 3D Cafe, in order to make the changes. Even Danish copyright law gives the author alone the right to prepare derivative works. If I download a graphic from the web & change it from a jpg to gif that doesn't mean that I can decide what to do with it just because I changed the format.

Cooler, you never answered me when I asked if it would be ok to distribute if I encoded the file with RTFEncoder. I can't "just" use ObjactionMover as I had to split vertices on the obj in order to make it look right in Poser. And then the original file didn't have an obj either. But as far as I understand, rtf encoder can use any type of file as key. But would that fix the situation here?

ernyoka1, You have to understand I can't give you permission to do anything with the file, it isn't my property.

I understand that perfectly, cooler, I am just asking if it GENERALLY would be considered "the right thing" to do in such circumstances. Since the critical point seems to be that I'm robbing 3DCafe of potential visitors by hosting a file that originated there.

ernyoka1, It depends on the modeller, a lot of people (DAZ included) usually permit the use of objaction mover for redistribution, however several of the Japanese artists do not (although some will make exceptions). The only way to be certain is to ask first.