Attached Link: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/3d_celebrities/

I've seen a lot of interest lately in recreating popular characters from Film and TV using Poser. This is a natural inspiration and a good way to test the limits of Poser as a 3D program. What people may not realize is that "digital cloning" has a long history in the Poser community and is also a strong theme in the realms of art and entertainment. If we think about it, when a sculpture of a famous person is created, that person's physical existence is being recreated or "cloned". One of the most popular themes in sketch and stand-up comedy is celebrity "impersonation". impersonate v. - To assume the character or appearance of, to imitate the appearance, voice, or manner of; mimic: an entertainer who impersonates celebrities. Also, there are a good many people who earn money or fame as celebrity look-alikes. While not a serious art or profession, their resemblances can sometimes be striking. One of the most popular acting roles on Film and TV is playing the role of a real person. Sometimes the resemblance can be uncanny, while other times you wonder what the casting agent was smoking when they auditioned the actors/actresses. And last but not least, lets not forget Action Figures and Dolls based on real people. Unfortunately they rarely look like the actual person by design or by accident. But they are a form of "clone". So its natural with today's technology to recreate living people in 3D. This is done quite well in many high end 3D apps like 3DS and Maya. Doing this in Poser is a bit more of a challenge as there are no modelling capablities. In order to get high quality results may require other 3D apps with advanced mesh creation and adjustment tools. Cloning can be attempted inside poser by adjusting Morph Targets using the parameter dials. Also Poser 5 Face Room is a tool that can be used with varying quality of results. CeeBee and myself co-own a yahoo group dedicated to the art and theory of digital cloning. I'd be interested in discussing it here or check out the yahoo group and join in on the discussion there. :)

Your Beyonce clone is quite stunning.

"Your Beyonce clone is quite stunning." Correct me if I am mistaken, but I do not believe that the Beyonce clone above was created using Poser morphs. I recall seeing a thread about that in the Yahoo group recently, and the creator said it was made in FaceGen with Photofit, which is a photo modeling or face cloning software. However, the resulting mesh could be "frankensteined" onto a poser body, which I believe is the case there.

As much as I like the P5 face room, it's hit or miss with getting resemblances to specific people, whereas I've seen some dead ringers done in facegen.

" As much as I like the P5 face room, it's hit or miss with getting resemblances to specific people, whereas I've seen some dead ringers done in facegen." P5 face room has it's uses, but digital cloning doesn't seem to be one of them. For the most part it's due to the limitations of both Don and Judy's meshes. But as you pointed out, Facegen (provided you have suitable photos to use) can output some incredible likenesses. Then of course you can use them in Poser if you wish. ;)

The Beyonce clone was made with a hybrid figure created by CeeBee, using a FaceGen head mesh and V2. Morphing a head isn't the same as building a head from scratch. "Dial Twiddling" as I call it, is time consuming and runs counter to what I believe is the secret formula to creating a facial likeness; the mesh must conform to the texture and not the other way around, as is always the case in Poser.

"Sideshow maintains this Web Site for information, communication, and as a product ordering facility. Without Sideshow's prior written permission, you may not reproduce, distribute, modify, display, prepare derivative works based on, repost or otherwise use this content, except that you may download one copy of the material on one computer for your personal, non-commercial home use only, provided you do not delete or change any copyright, trademark, or other proprietary notices." you really should not use images from the web without permission. As for digital clones, unless you have permission from the actor, writer, or current copyright holder your treading on very touchy ground.

Attached Link: http://www.sideshowtoy.com/cgi-bin/category.cgi?category=legal

Sorry should have been more clear..... The image of the Buffy figure is owned and licenced by SlideshowCollectibles.com, the quote is directly from their web site. you have croped their logo off the image.

"As for digital clones, unless you have permission from the actor, writer, or current copyright holder your treading on very touchy ground." Where does this come from? Is there any legal basis to this assumption that creating a likeness of a celebrity will somehow get you into hot water? As far as I'm concerned, creating a render of a 3D likeness is no different than creating a drawing of a celebrity; Fan art has long been a staple of many celebrity fansites.

Sideshow is VERY liberal about reposting their images, as long as the logos remain intact (hell it's free advertising) And I own a LARGE number of thier figures, and even have some signed by thier portrait artists. (And I prefer the Buffy" 1st figure sculpt over the one posted.. thier "Angel" sculpt is amazing!

Their Angel figure is indeed a good likeness, but what I really want now is a PuppetAngel figure.

"As for digital clones, unless you have permission from the actor, writer, or current copyright holder your treading on very touchy ground." Im trying to discuss the art and theory of digital clones, this has nothing to do with business or commercial considerations. These images are intended strictly as illustrations. I was trying to make a larger point about the cultural basis for digital cloning. Machine, I'm not sure what you're objecting to. This thread is about theory and technique. There is a common understanding of fair use, as long as nothing is being bootlegged, no money is being made using copyrighted materials, there is a degree of artistic license given to art depicting famous people and things. The Heidi Fleiss picture posted is from an UNAUTHORIZED biography being aired by USA Network, so obviously theres some breathing room when it comes to depicting real people, living or dead. Case in point, last month Renderosity itself ran a contest based on the TV show "Survivor". Should CBS have sued their pants off for running that contest? Obviously not, no money was being made as it was purely an exercise in artistic expression. Anyway, threads on here have a tendency to become hopelessly sidetracked and go off on tangents. I'd like to hear any ideas about technique or theory related to digital cloning.

It seems to me the key is getting good reference photos for the front and the side, essentially mug shots, which can be tough. I've also noticed that actresses tend to be more willing to look straight at the camera than models. No face is perfectly symmetrical. Less vanity perhaps?

yah, that coy 3/4 shot that models give is useless for reference. profile shots are pretty easy to get from movies, tv shows, music videos, etc. However, the elusive frontal face-on with neutral expression head shot is the holy grail of digital cloning.

1st posting copyrighted photos without permission to renderosity from the web can get rendersoity in trouble. it's posted in their agreement that ya don't do it. it's let slide a lot, a lot of people think it's okay to just grab a pic and throw it as a reference for people to see what they are talking about. it's still wrong. 2nd digital cloneing of actors, or characters from films and movies for personal use is fine, but when you post that picture then you get into grey area, or even a copyright/trademark area EVEN if it's posted freely. it is always best to check with people that control the copyright/trademark before you post a picture even if it's free. it's done a lot, a lot of the time it's not a big deal. I'm a big fan of SCIFI channel Farscape HUGE fan. I wanted to do some digital cloning of some of the characters, models and sets. I was told no that they were looking into fanart sites and that there were a lot of copyright infringments out on the web and that they were not giving permission to use any likeness or endorce anything but the licenceing. the issue of digital cloning has come up before also. when Daz had their digital clone of ana marie a playboy model. the terms of use for the images were so restrictive that Daz rewrote the tos for the product and it still has limits on what Anna Marie wanted people to do with her image even in poser. She was afraid of people using the likeness of her in product endorcements and graphic porn images. Even a freebie of a model, famous person, or tv or movie character they have a right. I understand that the discussion is about doing it, but in the same discussion should be the concequences of doing it and where artist/cloned persons rights are. I like Slideshows figurines. I've read their legal use clause on their site and the image of buffy up there didn't have anything saying they got permission, and the image was cropped giving no credit to the creators. Far too often it's let slide and thought to be okay, but it's not. Should be a link to the image on slideshows site and the image shouldn't be posted. not trying to upset anybody, just think people should be aware.

This is clearly an instance of fair use-commentary, research AND education. It's not wrong in any way. You should educate yourself more thoroughly on copyright law before making such claims.

rend says don't use copyrighted images in the agreement. Slideshows use on their site says what I quoted above, not to do it. there is no fair use when it clearly states that they do not want you to do it. just so we're clear here is Slideshow.com's statement again: "Sideshow maintains this Web Site for information, communication, and as a product ordering facility. Without Sideshow's prior written permission, you may not reproduce, distribute, modify, display, prepare derivative works based on, repost or otherwise use this content, except that you may download one copy of the material on one computer for your personal, non-commercial home use only, provided you do not delete or change any copyright, trademark, or other proprietary notices." 1 copy, 1 computer, now it's distributed through rend. modify, the image in this thread is croped with no notice of the source. says don't delete or change and it has been. fair use? tell that to Tom Cruise when you digitally clone him and he sues you. Blah, nobody cares anymore. digitally clone, rip web sites off and copy copyrighted stuff it's all free anyway, it's all in fun. yeah right.

to stay on topic. rent a DVD of your person that you want to clone. capture stills of various angle shots and then use those as reference photos to clone. it's not legal to use the photos if you post the image, but for your own private use it's easly done. the minute you show it to someone you've violated copyrights/trademarks, but it's easly done with simple techknowlege we have.

Copyright holders cannot claim rights they don't have just on their own say so. I certainly object when charges of wrongness and ripoff and thrown about irresponsibly. FYI: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-c.html#2 If Zarabanda is guilty of copyright infringement, you're guilty of libel!

what are you pointing to in the fair use overview? quote under Artwork and and Audiovisual Cases "Fair Use. A search engines practice of creating small reproductions (thumbnails) of images and placing them on its own website (known as inlining) did not undermine the potential market for the sale or licensing of those images. Important Factors. The thumbnails were much smaller and of much poorer quality than the original photos and served to index the images and help the public access them. (Kelly v. Arriba-Soft, 03 C.D.O.S. 5888 (9th Cir. 2003).)" the images are not thumbnails, they have been cropped and are in some of the cases in this thread not 'inlined' I'm not sure what your referencing. in the case of the buffy figurine picture used from the slideshow.com promotional image the image here is cropped with only half of the text showing, as well as being copied from their site and distributed here for all to see, a clear and blatent violation of the legal use as per the Slideshow.com web site for the use of their images. section 3 of the fair use from the web site you posted" "3. The Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Taken The less you take, the more likely that your copying will be excused as a fair use. However, even if you take a small portion of a work, your copying will not be a fair use if the portion taken is the "heart" of the work. In other words, you are more likely to run into problems if you take the most memorable aspect of a work. For example, it would not probably not be a fair use to copy the opening guitar riff and the words "I can't get no satisfaction" from the song, "Satisfaction."...." In cases of digital cloning you are taking well, their face, as the tools have become more and more easly accessible like Poser 5 with the face room and computer DVD players with still capture capabilities. it has become easyer to to digital cloning. as the quality is increasing rapidly it will soon be easy to reproduce a known character, model, actor etc and become harder and harder to distinguish from the original. There is a lightwave artist here at rend in the galleries that does 3d charactuers of famious people. they are not clones they are characteurs. if you use photos of a star even if it's free it's a violation of the original photographers copyright without getting permission 1st. if you use morphs, magnets and create an original texture for a likeness of a star or character i think it would then be under charactuer laws and parody, have no clue where the line would be, I don't think there is any case law on it so who really knows. but using images from the web from sites that say don't use this image is not fair use, it's a violation pure and simple, unless you get permission and state that you have gotten permission.

Attached Link: http://www.creativity-law.com/home/pub/2002-02.html

a site with a article on the issue of digital cloning. more of a what legal issues are coming than anything based in stone or the law itself. however it brings up a lot within the issue.

The world is going IPR crazy. It is possible for two unrelated people to look almost identical. If one of them is famous, does he/she have the right to sue the other one? Let's try and treat this issue with some sanity.

All this carrying on about copyright. Not only does Fir Use extend to Criticism, Journalism, and Educational use without the permision or conscent of the copywrit holder as noted above, so does parody and other forms of humor. Even if the above criteria for Fair Use are not met the copywrite holder is obliged to demonstrate confusion of product, damage to reputation, substitution of product and most importantly Real Damages (namely credible lost/diverted income). Unless Biance, or whatever her name is can demonstrate that sale of images of her self that she customerly benefits from finacially were negativly impacted by the publication of this thread I think we are safe ;) Absolutely I think we should respect copyright, all my software is properly licenced, all my music purchased legally, etc. but as an artist and educator I would hate to have freedom of expression and freedom of information shutdown by missguided interpretation of copyright protection... there was serious discussion in Quebec some years ago over whether the slides owned buy University Art History departments could in fact be shown to students as it was legally determined that posession of the slides did not imply a right to "public" display of the images on them. I believe the matter was settled by payments into an escrow account pending determination of ownership of the images on the tens of thousands of legally purchased slides involved. I have just removed a book at random from the shelf and read that "no part of this book may be used in any manner whatsoever without the prior written permission" of the publisher... I better get a letter of to the publisher before I start reading it or maybe set a can of coke on it to protect the table :) Likewise most of my CDs expressly prohibit me from listening to them an electronic equipment like a CD player but I do take the liberty. I guess the point is that for a free society to work common sense should prevail... I don't have cable but why they should be protected from me descrabling signals they choose to beam through MY house eludes me... I doubt I could get the please to invest much energy in protecting a fifty dolar bill I choose to leave under a pebble on the sidewalk in front of my house. I guess the bottom line for me is substitution of product... you are not violating copyright unless you integrate the actual product (code, sample, etc.) if you are dealing mearly with likness than the owness should be on people to be distinctive enough to protect themselves... 98% of us are using operating systems that were stolen lock stock and barel from Apple but people will make each other crazy over what artist who have no prayer of making any money any way do.

Machine, I really don't know where you're coming from on this. Your viewpoint seems a little reactionary and harsh, purely aimed at stifling free thought and open discussion. I think its important to exercise fairness and be open-minded, your perspective is so self assured and absolutist that people are being alienated. Nobody here is advocating copyright violations. We're trying to discuss art theory and technique. Your viewpoint seems to be that digital cloning is a forbidden art, needed to be stamped out by the thought police. Maybe we should go slash up the Mona Lisa? Or maybe smash a wax museum sculpture of Marilyn Monroe. After all, I don't remember seeing a release form from Da Vinci glued to his painting.

well as far as i know zarabanda is only discussing of cloning in general and not a specific person, and he can use a few "edxamples" as fair use, to illustrat is speach. is free speech is copyrigthed to someone, then we are dommed :) aside from that it is an interesting thread... but i would like to bring another subject: aside from "personnality" (tv/movie stars/actors, or characters), what abotu digital cloning of "non famous" persns ? they too hae a right on their own image/look (at least in my country, the right and protection of self image/physicallook is protected, no need to be a star !) i bring this question becasue i saw some promo pictures of wolfgang at arduino's, and a friend of mine launched me a couple of renders with nearly no tweaking, using the figure right out of the cr2, launched in poser.. believe me it is FRIGTHENING: this fat bearded wolfgang is my clone at more than 90%. tweak it a bit and it is my clone ! i can tell you i am embarassed too, knowing a digital clone of mine is around here, used for any purpose... of course adruino never met me, so it is just a odd coincidence, but yet i can tell you it is disturbing...no, i would use the same word as beforer: FRIGTHENING :) (now of course if one wanna render "me" with a yamato's tenten in his arms, i won't object :)

Now that the copyright infringement distraction has been thoroughly discredited, is there any chance of getting this thread back to its' originally intended direction?

errr it's not discredited your just shying away from it, glossing over it as if there is nothing there. I love it when people steal images that say do not steal and then say oh its nothing I'm not hurting anybody. Ya know when images from the poser gallery are stolen by other sites posted as their own the whole poser community gets on a bandwagon and rips them a new one. But when someone rips something off from a company and crops the image and doesn't give credit to the original person and someone brings it up they get bashed and told to go hang a rope. Stars sue all the time for photographers invading their privacy and using illegally gotten photos. Normal people sue when their image is used in an unflatterning way and they have not given permission on TV shows or film etc. yet when this is brought up about digital cloning everybody screams fair use or tryed to stiffle the person. it gets me very mad for a very personal reason. Idenity theft, stealing of web images have both happened very close to me, and it IS a relevant part of the discussion. since the Mod's don't care, Rend doesn't care I won't anymore. care on nothing from me on the topic anymore........

You should not be using any pics of celebs as texture map elements. Just and FYI. Great likenesses though.

PS: In my experience, the best way to do a celeb face is Poser is to make 3 to 5 unique face morphs based on 3 to 5 celebs shots and then blend them together in Poser for a hybrid morph.

Your arguments are convoluted. How can I be shying away from something and screaming about it at the same time? You are clueless regarding copyright law, and have ignorantly accused someone of theft. I hope you're proud of yourself. You've hijacked a useful thread and turned it into a character assasination.

Anton, TY so much for your feedback. I wanted this to be a valuable, informative thread and I feel that it is now. Your approach is very interesting and makes a lot of sense. Blending morphs does tend to create a median average of sorts, recreating memorable facial features without overdoing certain facial distinctions. A lot of times a morph can go overboard, no longer realistically capturing a distinct feature but instead becoming caricature.

Riddokun, you bring up an interesting point. I have been questioned "why the focus on celebrities?". Certainly there is just as much interest in cloning regular, non-famous people. And this art theory and technique applies equally to celeb and non-celeb, it is a universal art form that I think will become more understood and accepted as time goes on. The reason for using celebrities is effectiveness and convenience. Celeb clones are effective because they are universally recognizable. I can clone my 6th grade math teacher, but chances are, you'll have no idea who the hell I'm talking about. They are convenient because of the wealth of source material, the only other option would be to do a photoshoot or 3D scan of a person. I'm guessing we don't have the resources or opportunity to do that so we're stuck with celebs for now. But I def want this to be a discipline that is well understood and universally applied to all subjects.

"You've hijacked a useful thread and turned it into a character assasination. " That tends to happen alot around here. Just my 2 cents. No reply needed.

No, he didn't hijack a thread. Education about technique should always include education about ethics. Would you teach someone to drive a car without FIRST telling him about the rules of the road? Would you teach someone how to shoot a gun without FIRST warning him not to carelessly point it at people? Identity theft can be just as harmful. As mentioned before, the FIRST day of my PhotoShop class, the instructor spent the entire lesson on ethics... teaching us not only how to find images on the web, but how to respect copyright; how to make changes, and when not to touch something; etc.. and she gave us a handout to reinforce her points. I believe it was Chesterton who said "Art, like morality, must draw the line somewhere". We need to teach people not only how to draw the line, but where to draw it. Carolly

"Stars sue all the time for photographers invading their privacy and using illegally gotten photos" That is something different. If a papparazzo snaps a flim star sunbathing by her pool through a telephoto lens, then that is invasion of privacy. A photo taken in the street as said star arrives at a party is a different matter altogether.

carolly, instead of paying attention to only the quote pay attention to my comment. I was commenting on the "hijacked a useful thread and turned it into a character assasination" part. I was not talking about ethics nor the core focus of the discussion. Once again, No reply needed.

::Waits for the dead horse to finish being beaten Well, now that we're done harping on copyright issues, lets return to our regularly scheduled thread. does anybody have suggestions for source material besides the kind mentioned up to this point?

Let me make a suggestion that will satisfy your need for content without violating copyright issues ... But first, an example that comes from firsthand experience. You're writing a tutorial about how to do compositing and postwork on a photograph, to teach people how to manipulate photos in a graphic program. The tutorial is part of a chapter in a book. So, you shoot a photo of your baby niece or nephew. The parents give you verbal permission to use it. When the chapter is done, you submit it to the publisher for editing and review. They ask "Did you get a release for the photo? We need one." You say "It's my niece and the parents said it was OK." The publisher says "Cool, but we need it in writing." So ... here's a case where it WASN'T someone famous, it was someone in my own family that I knew. The publisher knew they had a legal responsibility to obtain permission to use the photo in their book, and to distribute the photo on their CD. Imagine the legalities involved with photos of celebrities ... So ... my suggestion is to have members of your forum take front and side photos of themselves, and to submit them with an email or PDF file that gives other members of the group permission to use them for character creation. Otherwise you will get yourself in a VERY hot puddle of wax.

btw i think that people should eb indulgent about "theories" and educationnal speech about digital cloning, at least becasue the movie and video game industry is all but too happy to find such talents/skills already in their employees woul they hire one more to do that. Do you think people who made Alias or Buffy video games asked a guy to take a few monthes to learn HOW to digitally clone garner or gellard ? no they surely hired someone that had such talent/skills already in hand and were all but too happy that he was ready/able to do it :) and by the way yes papparazzi invade privacy, but digital cloners would not. I mean those stars always show themselves in public, so their image is "public" (not in a copyright view strictly speaking, because the "photograph of the pictures has a right on his work, and stars havea right on theri own image) but hey, they seems to "give up" a bit of their self image right because they always show gthemselves. I, as an anonymous citizen am entitled the SAME rights to privacy and selfimage right (of course it is not as much violated because i do not make crowd bathes) but if i am shot in a public place (street, etrc) by a magazine, i cannot sue the newspaper or the magazine BECAUSE i am in a public place. (of course under certain circomstances i can forbidd the use of a shot featurign me, even in the background, if my image is shown or displayed or used in a demeaning way or a way that can hurt me socially or in other way, but it is rare) so in fact, stars have same rights as citizens, but they willingly/tacitely "abandon" a small portion of their rights on this matter because they uses their image professionnally and publicly ! and quit beating the dead horse, or else, just mail beyonce agent and tell him to sue rosity, zarabanda and us. if people were always to sue everyone for everything, even in fair/educationnal purpose/use, judges and courts would be overcrowed by stars, paparazzi and poor guies, while drugdealer, killers and such would ahve a free time roaming dowtown ! come on ! in fact we are in a society and time when ANYONE can SUE EVERYONE/ANYONE for nearly virtually ANY kind of grief, legally. The grief list and possibilities is saturated. Would we always use it systematically, it would be a law hell ! still i am embarassed at Arduino's Wolfgang, and could legitimately be annoyed, but i won't sue him ! because even if it would be legal or possible, it is just insane and nonsense. Next day i sue my neighbor, next my parents... have something else to do of my week than suing the world ! lawsuit paranoia and copyright madness is just the new poison of our days !

lawsuit paranoia and copyright madness is just the new poison of our days ! Yes, you are correct in stating this ... nevertheless, BECAUSE of that, it is better to be safe than sorry.

Jennifer Lopez could sue me all the time.

since this is what so many people insist on doing, I'll just go with the flow. :)

I think you miss the point, Zarabanda. You are trying to teach the art of digital cloning. Yet, you say that it is "beating a dead horse" when people express concern about using copyrighted images and advise you to use photos that you have permission to use. If your intent is to teach people how to create digital clones, then your instructions and technique should be the same, whether the photo is of a famous person or not, correct?

To continue with my thoughts above ... if you shoot your own photos there are several advantages. Higher resolution. Color and lighting consistency. You can shoot any angle that you need for morphing. PLUS, the original subject can give you a "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" as to whether or not it looks like him or her. To me, the ULTIMATE challenge would be to create a clone where the subject agrees that it is a definite clone. 8-)

Soon there will be software which only needs a photo and it applies it to the model.

"If your intent is to teach people how to create digital clones, then your instructions and technique should be the same, whether the photo is of a famous person or not, correct?" To a point. A huge part of the challenge is getting the dead ringer with the help of reference photos that aren't high-res, perfectly angled and consistently lit. A lot has to be accomplished in the photo app, not the 3D app.

A huge part of the challenge is getting the dead ringer with the help of reference photos that aren't high-res That is what is confusing, though ... with low-resolution source material, how accurate is your clone going to be? Source material that is captured from DVD or VHS is extremely grainy (through analog degradation or digital compression). Plus in that case you are working with a graphic that is, at best, 480 pixels high. That can make a HUGE difference in appearance with a closeup. Aside from that, even if using celebrity photos from the Internet WERE legal, you'd be hard-pressed to find two photos where coloring and lighting is uniform and suitable to match between front and side views. That is where you have to accomplish a lot in your photo app, but even then you have to compensate for data loss by compression (which you can NEVER recover). You might be able to make adjustments by applying some filtering, but it will never be as good as a first-generation, uncompressed photo. And the source quality would be very telling in a large closeup render. So why limit yourself by starting with low-quality source material? If the goal is accurate cloning, and you're investing thousands of dollars in the software that accomplishes it, why skimp on the very photos that you use to make the clones?

If you're using the photos merely for reference to shape the mesh appropriately they don't even have to be in color. Shaping the mesh and building the texture are two different parts of the process. You don't necessarily have to use the same photos to perform the two tasks. And of course, using photos from the internet for both mesh manipulation reference and making textures is legal. Yet another link, for those whose reading comprehension skills are up to it, on the well established concept of fair use. http://www.umuc.edu/library/copy.html

Deecey, I appreciate your concerns. We can ALL use an education in IP, we can never learn enough. When I posted this thread it was informal and assumed the reader was mature and had a sense of professional discretion. This thread is for INFORMATIONAL purposes only and NOT ONCE did I mention any kind of commercial application. If people NEED me to tell them that they can't use copyrighted material in a commercial venture then they need to give up digital cloning and go back to reading the sunday funnies. I think sometimes I overestimate the intelligence level on this website. Judging by MP texture scandals, I probably do.

"if you shoot your own photos there are several advantages. Higher resolution. Color and lighting consistency" Thats a big assumption to make. I'm describing technique ASSUMING that people don't own a professional photo studio or even a camera. "with low-resolution source material, how accurate is your clone going to be?" You'd be suprised. I don't consider any of the source materials I've worked with so far to be Hi-Res. Maybe Medium-Res at best. Obviously, the better the source material the better the finished product. But I'm trying to show people how to get maximum results with minimum resources. Ideally, I'd love to be working at ILM with the latest in cutting technology. I'm not and neither are most small business owners or freelance artists. Doesn't mean you can't get some impressive results, you just have to be resourceful.

If people NEED me to tell them that they can't use copyrighted material in a commercial venture then they need to give up digital cloning The unfortunate part of all of this, Zarabanda, is that you have an audience with a wide range of experience and expertise. Some know the importance of copyright issues, while others don't. As you pointed out, the MP texture and "tubing" scandals are proof that there are many out there who don't respect this very sensitive issue. And, that is the primary reason why there are several people expressing their concerns about using celebrity photos. >> Thats a big assumption to make. I'm describing technique ASSUMING that people don't own a professional photo studio or even a camera. That's a valid point; however, you do have an area where you provide photos for your group members to practice with ... it would be just as easy to share digital photos of group members as it is to share your celebrity photos. I don't think people are challenging your PROCESS or your results at all ... as I've said before I think your work is excellent, and have even complimented you privately. But when you title a thread "The Art and Theory of Digital Cloning" and then post copyrighted celebrity photos as examples, it is only natural for some people, including myself, to express concern about it. Just because it's freely available doesn't mean it's in the public domain and is OK to use. And unless we set examples, we will continue to fight the battles about what is OK and what is not. No disrespect intended, Zarabanda ... just voicing concerns is all.