Attached Link: Set 1

Anna's first Handmedowns package is ready. This includes the following P4 items converted to RTEncoded Anna (ATG) items: Posette Bicycle Shorts Posette Bikini (Bottom and Top) Posette Halter Dress Posette Halter Top Posette Leotard Posette Strap Dress Posette Leotard Additionally, it also contains an RTEncoded ATG conversion of a corset for which I have not yet been able to locate the original creator (and I do not remember who that person is). You may or may not have this corset. If you do, you'll find the geometry for it and be able to decode it. If you don't, you won't. I'd love to tell you where to get it, but not even Little_Dragon recognises it. If you do, however, and you want to use it, you should be forewarned that it will not *fit* Anna. There is massive pokethrough in the sides even in default and zero poses. This is because it's a corset. B^) However, to makelife easy on you, this package also includes a partial body morph for Anna called 'Corset Trained'. It's an INJection and corresponding REMoval pose pair that crams Anna's shape into the corset and simultaneously crushes the life out of her boobs and pushed the part left outside up. The morph looks painfully correct. Ever wanted to see what someone looks like inside a corset without the corset there? Now you can! Ouch. (And admittedly, assuming you're using her as 18 or older, yum). http://24.21.186.144:8889/freestuff/AnnaHMD1.exe 2MB PC http://24.21.186.144:8889/freestuff/AnnaHMD1.sit 2MB Mac Image shows the converted P4 Halter Dress used with StudioMaya hair, Steph Petite texture, and AMG facial morph at .5

Attached Link: Set 2

The Anna Edition of the V3/SP Clothing bundle is now available. Cost to you... *totally free* You must have the V3/SP Clothing Bundle available from DAZ (and splattered all over their front page) to use these. The objects are RTEncoded and require the use of either RTEncoder or RTEJava to decode. The README tells you what file to use to decode what. Ain't no reason the other two chicks should get these clothes and Anna shouldn't, after all. If you own Anna, your V3/SP Clothing Bundle just got more valuable. http://24.21.186.144:8889/freestuff/AnnaCB.exe - PC - 4MB http://24.21.186.144:8889/freestuff/AnnaCB.sit - Mac - 3.6MB

Just a few items from set 2.

This is a very good idea, to convert existing clothes to work with a new figure because one of the bad things about new figures generally is that they don`t have any clothes to start with.

...there's more to come. Dodger's goal is to have as many different types of clothing available for the Aeon figures as possible. He's working on free sets now for Rafael and Mary. And has plans for more for Anna, Puck, and Seth.

I don`t have any of these figures but the cloth converting idea is excellent and will help to generate more interest in the figures.

Wa-HOOO! And... Dodger.. is it you posting under pdxjim's handle? (I know you're 2 peeps, but I couldn't help noticing the very Dodger'esque smiley in post 1 B^) ) If so, let me use this opportunity to thank you for the COOL Aeon characters!! And if pdxjims is "only" Jim, please relay my thanks to Dodger :o)

...don't have to relay anything! The Great and Powerful Dodger knows all and sees all! And he's even got snake oil at a reasonable price! I just post his ad copy, ernyoka1. My smilie face of choice is always ;) ;) Jim, the one, the only, the not so amazing but never banned.

Additionally, it also contains an RTEncoded ATG conversion of a corset for which I have not yet been able to locate the original creator (and I do not remember who that person is).

Just looking for a clarification, not trying to rain on anyone's parade. If you don't know who made the corset originally, was there a readme included that gave permission to distribute derivative works? If not, it probably isn't a good idea to distribute it. If yes, could you post a picture of it so that maybe one of the forum members might be able to identify it or at least determine if they have it.

Grey Tower, Since it's RTE encoded, it's not distributing the item. Only modifications to the item. You must have the original corset to use the RTE encoded package. It's like distributing morphs for a figure, or textures for a clothing item.

I understand that, however, the modifications make it a "derivative" of the original object. Copyright gives derivative rights to the creator/copyright holder. The way I understand copyright, 3rd party derivative works can be created and distributed only with permission of the copyright holder.

The only reason morphs can be distributed is because DAZ and CL have given permission for morphs to be created and distributed. Without that permission, they are derivative works that are covered by copyright.

(Edited to change subject line only)

Message edited on: 06/21/2004 19:11

"Morphs by themselves are not derivative works, they are derivations. Morph target objects are derivative works, which is why INJ files were invented in the first place, as INJ files are merely deltas. Likewise an RTE file is not a derived work but rather a binary extraction of the differences. Explain with the moustache panache example if you need to -- where if I take a painting you sell prints of and make a transparancy with a moustache the same size and with the moustache and lighting and all in the right place, and instructions on how to lay my moustache over that size print of your painting, I'm not in violation of your copyright because the derivations are distinct form the original work." BTW, the creator of the corset was identifued at PoserPro's after I posted.

Ok. I think I understand, but I thought to make a morph target you were just pushing and pulling the original points. Wouldn't that make a morph a derivative work?

By the way, who was the creator?

Thought of something else, isn't your moustache panache example and just an example of fair use? It doesn't seem like fair use would apply in the case of modifying an existing object to fit a different figure.

Don't get me wrong, I think what you're doing is great. I'm just concerned about the legal and ethical implications. Since you know who the creator is now, have you tried to contact him and inform him of what you're doing? It seems like it would be the polite thing to do in any case.

Jim, the one, the only, the not so amazing but never banned. ROFLMAO! Say hey to Dodger for me. :-) -Heidi

Injection morphs are a push of verticies from one point to another, without giving the original verticie information. So it's take a point and move it 2x 3y 4z, whatever the original location of th point is. That's why an injection morph will work from figure to figure. If a person purchases a size 10 dress, and takes it in to a size 8 and gives it to their younger sister as a hand-me-down, is that a fair use violation? The clothing has been modified to refit someone else. No. However, if someone takes the dress, takes it apart and creates a new sewing pattern from it, then sells that pattern, it is a violation. Dodger is trying to contact the creator (or already has). I think there's a thread over at PoserPro's giving all the details. God, this posting his notices sometimes ain't easy. I think I'll make him buy me a latte. Heidi, consider the "hey" passed along.

Howdy folks, DAZ permits derivative works, including morph targets, without permission for it's products as long as certain guidelines are followed. The most important of these is that no derivative can be distributed that makes it unnecessary to own the original in order to use the derivation (this is why RTE encoder & Objaction mover are such important tools). Understand however, the this is solely a DAZ decision & cannot be applied to other creators. Copyright law gives every copyright holder the right to decide who can & cannot distribute derivations of their original. From reading through this thread the questions seem to be... 1) Are encoded morph targets derivative works? IMHO, morph targets (even encoded ones), fit the legal definition of derivative works. They may not contain any of the original geometry but they are dependent on the original to be created & require the original in order to be used. This from the US copyright office circular 14 "Copyright Registration for Derivative Works" (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html)... "A derivative work, that is, a work that is based on (or derived from) one or more already existing works..." 2) Can encoded morphs be legally distributed without permission from the original creator? My gut reaction is no, however, there is no current case law I've been able to find that supports my POV. The only way to know for sure would be to actually submit a case for trial & depend on the judges decision. 3) Is it ethical to distribute morphs without permission? Ethics always boil down to personal views & moral guidelines. Would I do it? No. I always ask & if I don't get an answer I take that as a "no". Grey_Tower... Joat Mon has been identified as the creator of the corset in question & this is from the readme he includes with all of his models. "The geometries are my creation and are free for you to use. They are not for sale and by your using them, you agree not to sell them or include them with anything for sale. If you want to include them with a character that you create, please include this text file along with it. If you render an image using any of the models that I have made, the images belong to you and you have all rights to those images. When I see one, I'll get a kick out of it :`)" pdxjims (nee Dodger) Your moustache argument is a non sequitur at best. The moustache is a separate work, able to stand alone & is not dependent on the original painting in order to be created or used. Once you place it on a painting however the entire work then becomes a derivative of the original. As I pointed out above a morph target is based upon a specific original & requires that original in order to be created/used.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=12395&Form.ShowMessage=1824125

There's a thread on this topic in the Copyright Forum as well (see link). Very interesting reading, fascinating topic. Apparently, a third circuit court found in a software case that difference files are derivative works, so it's more than just personal educated opinion, there's a legal precedence for it.

There's also been some discussion there of the enormous can of worms that this could turn out to be....

bonni

But surely if people try to stop add ons and textures being made for there products then there products will be less popular so in the long run they will lose out?

Exactly xantor, however that is a decision that can only be made by the copyright holder/creator of the product & cannot be assumed, regardless of the circumstances.

"pdxjims (nee Dodger)" That's an understandable perception but in fact they are two very distinct people. They live in the same city and are friends offline. Because _dodger can't access Renderosity, Jim serves as his spokesperson here. cooler, your comments have given me a lot to think about, your clarifications are always appreciated.

Well since the original author has been identified, I'd guess there really isn't any issue any more. Either he gives permission or he doesn't. If he does, great. If he doesn't, well it's his loss, and it's not a significant portion that would have to be pulled out of Dodger's product anyway. FWIW, I hope he does give permission. It would certainly sell an awful lot of his corsets! God, this posting his notices sometimes ain't easy. I think I'll make him buy me a latte. I would. ;-) -Heidi

I need to do another product of my own, if only to get my own persona back...

Oh, so now you want to be a separate entity, do you? ;-) -Heidi

It would seem the answer to this question is...ask for permission.

It's been generally accepted by many in this community that works by others and modifications of works by others should not be distributed without permission of the creator/copyright holder. It's also been considered a courteous and polite thing to do whether there are legal issues involved or not.

I would be loath to do business with a merchant who overlooked the rights of a copyright holder in favor of adding value to his own products and gaining popularity, even if his intentions were altruistic.

While Joat Mon hasn't specifically forbidden modification, he did not expressly allow it either. I hope that Dodger will do the honorable thing and remove the corset from the file he's offering until he can establish that he has Joat Mon's permission.

Troll

lock & load :-)

Oh, so now you want to be a separate entity, do you? Fat chance. Dodger has some sort of weird ability to take over people's brains. I dreamed about him last night and I've dreamed about him before (no, no, nothing embarassing or rude, just one of those 'and you were there, and you were there...' type things). Now we could assume that it's because I read a couple PMs from him not long before I went to sleep, but given the way he's taken over pdxjims's persona, I think it's probably a lot more sinister... bonni

Sinister indeed. And it's fun knowing the moderator e-bots flinch every time you say "Dodger". :)

We don't flinch. We giggle hysterically and bounce our eyeballs on the floor a couple of times so that you know we are watching. Is Dodger in Portland, too? I thought that he'd moved to Seattle where he could get decent a cup of coffee. Carolly

What is a troll and what is trolling? No wiseacre lord of the rings answers please.

Attached Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

*What is a troll and what is trolling?* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll Everything you could wish to know about the topic, I think. bonni <-- Not a troll

yclept ynsaen <--- troll baiter

"We giggle hysterically and bounce our eyeballs on the floor a couple of times so that you know we are watching." Damn, he does have the power.

RTE or Objaction encided files are okay by all major poser content makers and sites to distribute variations of commerical mesh as the original MUST be used to decode it. As the user can't use it without decoding and there is as yet NO way to crack a RTE or objaction coded object (Yes I've tried for the sake of science) this is a safe and secure way to distibute variations of copyrighted mesh. So technically getting the creators permission is good manners, but not needed. Dodger is well within bounds. and GreyTower, I suggest you not try to scold your elders. Bad karma. Plus ..we remember annoying people looks evil waves to Hauksdottir and gives secret Evil Emperors Salute ps Jim could ya tell Dodger its okay if he converts PW clothing objects? we don't mind :) and it would give us one less thing on the List Lyrra

"and GreyTower, I suggest you not try to scold your elders. Bad karma. Plus ..we remember annoying people looks evil"

Is that a veiled threat? Does that mean you and the "we" you are referring to won't give me help when I need it, or will have me shunned because I expressed an opinion and voiced a concern? Are you suggesting I'll be harrassed if I don't "keep quiet"?

I don't think voicing a concern should be considered annoying, although I can see how it can be to someone who doesn't like to see "waves" being made or feels a "friend" is being attacked. Your comments regarding that were uncalled for. As far as "elders" go, if people want my respect they need to earn it, so keep your "scolding" to yourself. There is a difference between "scolding" and voicing opinions and concerns, you should learn the difference.

People have a right to ask questions and point out things that seem improper. Getting a creators permission is good manners, and as the copyright holder, they also have the right to decide if variations can be made to their items and if those variations can be distributed. Dodger may own the "variations", but only the copyright holder can authorize distribution of those variations since "variations" are derivative work, so "technically" it could be considered the necessary thing to do.

"RTE or Objaction encided files are okay by all major poser content makers and sites to distribute variations of commerical mesh as the original MUST be used to decode it.

That generalization only holds true for the content makers and sites that have stated it's ok.

I realize that "popular people" can get away with whatever they want and many people will "look the other way" if they are getting something they want. That doesn't make it right. I also realize that not going along with everything a "popular person" does is frowned upon by some here...but I don't care :oP

Message edited on: 06/27/2004 06:54

I don't consider myself popular. In fact I can state that at least 6 people I'm aware of on this board hate me :) That aside Dodger has been using poser for a very long time. He has been a merchant for a very long time. I would think that a newcomer may relise that someone who helped shape the community might in fact know what they are doing, but you might not have known how long Dodger has been around. Just pointing that fact out. Also Dodger isn't popular, certainly not here. In fact, he was banned from here lol for various political reasons. Which is why he hasn't taken a piece out of your hide. As far as a threat? nah. Why would I bother? you dig your own hole. Just helpfully pointing out again that this boards are watched by the majority of major players in the Poser community. Your behaviour is remembered, and may come back to haunt you in the future. Of course that may mean nothing to you, but again I felt it should be noted. I for one would be less likely to wotk with you based what I can see of your chcracter in this thread shrug Lyrra the (ex) Evil Overlord "Sometimes Honesty is more Evil than Lying. Remember that"

"Does that mean you and the "we" you are referring to won't give me help when I need it, or will have me shunned because I expressed an opinion and voiced a concern? Are you suggesting I'll be harrassed if I don't "keep quiet"?" Well, as someone who has made her share of faux pas and continues to do so unabated: yes. It holds true for here, for Poser Pros, for 3DCommune -- pretty much the whole shebang. The rightness or wrongness of that isn't applicable, either. All social groups utilize peer pressure and cooperativeness to enforce cultural norms. This one is no different, even if it is made up predominantly of "nonconformists". Beyond that, as well, there is friendship involved. The folks that are the keepers of the keys, the Gurus -- they are all either friends, enemies, or business partners. familiarity through association. What's notable is that it isn't uncommon for the enemies of one person to make precisely such a commentary utilizing a shell or ghost account. Some of them have been known to create several accounts, and use them sporadically and over time. Might wait six months to pounce, even. This doesn't mean you shouldn't speak out. It does mean you have to be aware that speaking out in public, as opposed to doing so in private, has it's risks here, just as in the "real world" (which, oddly enough, this is a part of). Not that it matters, mind ya, lol

So, multiple Renderosity bannings and being banned from the DAZ forums (despite being a DAZ broker) amounts to "popularity"? Guess I should be glad I'm not popular... bonni

"It does mean you have to be aware that speaking out in public, as opposed to doing so in private, has it's risks here, just as in the "real world" (which, oddly enough, this is a part of)."

I'm well aware of the various cliques on this site and others. Fortunately that doesn't concern me. If people can't deal with criticism, concern, or opinions popular or unpopular that's their problem not mine. If voicing an opinion or concern that's unpopular makes the "cliques" turn their backs on me, and that influences others, so be it.

"So, multiple Renderosity bannings and being banned from the DAZ forums (despite being a DAZ broker) amounts to "popularity"?"

Management decisions at various sites has little to do with who members "embrace". In some cases bannings makes a person more appealing to the populace.

Of course, it's also a well known "tactic" to draw attention away from a topic by turning on the person involved in it. C'est la vie. I can accept all that, but if a "content creator" does that, then seeks support because someone is distributing a derivative of their work without permission, don't look for support from me. The sword cuts both way.

Perhaps I'm not popular and I don't have lots of "friends" here or lots of freebies to give away and I'm not a "Pope" or a "Dragon" or whatever; but it's a sad day when a members of a community that scream about free speech when the OT forum is removed, would stifle the free speech of a member of that community.

no -- it's not a sad day. It's life. That's why I noted that it is normal behavior for any social group of human beings on this planet. Nothing wrong with aspiring for greater things, mind you, but don't be shocked or bothered (and it appears you are not ;)) when anything different happens.

Of course, it's also a well known "tactic" to draw attention away from a topic by turning on the person involved in it. Good grief, lighten up. Do you take everything everyone says and does with such grave seriousness? Or should I have put in a bunch of emoticons to indicate that I was just making a wry and rather tongue-in-cheek observation? I was mostly making light of your comment about what "the popular people" can "get away with". Being not one of those people, I found it kind of amusing, and I also found it amusing that an opinionated and self-proclaimed drama queen like Dodger would be considered popular by anyone, given his long history of pissing people off. And just for the record, I was one of the people in the copyright forum who took your questions and concerns seriously, remember? Or am I now part of some "clique" of "popular people" or something because I found your "popular people" comment something worthy of my dry sense of humor? Well, you know, whatever. I was just being slightly silly about the concept of "popularity" (not something I've ever had a problem with, as I've never been popular). If you insist on taking my silly comments as some sort of dig, be my guest. bonni

Bonni,I didn't take your comments as a "dig". The comment you're refering to wasn't "aimed" at you. I was just saying that was a tactic some people use, which was why I included it in a separate paragraph.

bonni, I am very very very very very very very very very sorry if you thought I was refering to you, I wasn't, honest!!!!!!!

I enjoy your dry sense of humor always. ;o)

Sokay. Apology accepted and I'm sorry for getting snippy with you. I really, really should NOT post when I'm tired... ;-) bonni

bonni nope, he was refering to me. Cause obviously I'm a bad bad person :) Grey If a person creates a derivitive of my commercial work in such a way that it does not give the end user my commercial work, then they are in fact free to do it. The chance of that happening is relatively slim, as I'm a texturist and as yet there's no reasonable way to encode textures. In fact, I'd consider it a compliment of they do so, frankly. Who was it that said the greatest compliment is plagiarism? Twain I think. I reread this thread from the beggining. I may have reacted a bit harshly, but frankly, you irritated me by casting aspersions on Dodger. Mind you I think he's a cranky opinionated ***** but I respect his work and ethics. You I don't know. You will do as you please, and people will react as they always do. Nothing I can say or do is going to change your path in the slightest. So have fun, and enjoy your soapbox. When you get down to the bottom line, humans are nasty little monkeys. Sometimes they throw fruit, sometimes they throw rocks. Lyrra ps I'm not going to follow this thread any longer. Aren't we all happy now?

"it's also a well known "tactic" to draw attention away from a topic by turning on the person involved in it" is that not the same tatic you used to draw away atention frome dogers free clothig converson things and aeon figues by turnig on him and makig attacks on his ethics with your i for one would not buy from... garbage? Lyra if you secretley do folow it anway as far as i know what monkeys usually throw is shit

Well Lyrra, I let it drop on the 22nd, you're the one that decided to enter the fray "late" as it were, with a snippy retort aimed directly at me.

Cast aspersions on Dodger? No that's not what I did. I questioned the validity of the modification and distribution of mesh without the permission of the copyright holder. Moving some points in the original mesh and only distributing what amounts to those moved points is still distributing a derivative of the original whether you like it or not.

Encoding was developed as a way for derivations to be distributed so as not to distribute the entire mesh with the derivations to someone that didn't have the original mesh; not to circumvent needing permission to distribute derivations.

As far as Twain commenting about plagiarism, perhaps he wouldn't have felt as complemented had he lost money such as Steffyzz has. Now, mind you, I did not accuse Dodger of plagiarism, so quoting Twain in this case probably didn't apply.

Whether there is an infringement here or a simple case of discourtesy makes no difference. Dodger is obviously concerned with protecting his own work as he has apparently complained and voiced concerns about another content creator using the name Puck for a figure in the Renderosity Marketplace. Why shouldn't he be as concerned about getting permission from JoatMon to modify and distribute the corset as he is about what he considers an infringement of his trademark.

I don't think you're a bad person. In fact, I have always admired you and your willingness to listen to both sides of the story, without passing judgement on people, when you were a Mod. I have no objection to you disagreeing with me. I just felt your personal admonishment of me for expressing my concerns and opinion, uncalled for.

I irritated you? Perhaps you should take a deep breath and count to 10 and avoid "dumping" on someone next time. ;oP

Perhaps we could return to discussing clothing or copyrights or compatibilities? Carolly Poser Coordinator

Jote mon gave permision cooler listed that permision

"Jote mon gave permision cooler listed that permision"

That's not actually the case. Cooler quoted this from Joat Mon's readme included with the corset:

"The geometries are my creation and are free for you to use. They are not for sale and by your using them, you agree not to sell them or include them with anything for sale. If you want to include them with a character that you create, please include this text file along with it. If you render an image using any of the models that I have made, the images belong to you and you have all rights to those images. When I see one, I'll get a kick out of it :`)"

It says "free to use". It also says they can be included "with a character that you create" although you cannot "sell them or include them with anything for sale". That does not state it can be modified nor does it state it can be distributed separately from a non-commercial character you created.

Even if there weren't copyright concerns, IMHO, the right thing to do would be to let Joat Mon know what he was going to do and ask for permission. It's hard to believe Joat Mon wouldn't have been thrilled and would have given permission without a second thought, but, it can't just be assumed he would.

But on the other hand you're assuming that Dodger hasn't GOT that permission by now, aren't you?