The "not for commercial use" rule seems to be a grey area, nobody seems to know exactly what the objects creator intended to mean. So, i'm asking you all. If in the read me of a downloaded file it states "not for commercial use" does that make a finished peice of artwork inelligible for sale? What about art shows? How much does the object have to be changed? Anybody who has an opinion or better yet any 3d modelers who know what you intended please contact me by either priv. message, email at spiffyandstuff@hotmail.com, or aol instant messager (spiffyandstuff).

Not for Commercial Use-means just that, the item you downloaded and included in your creation/work cannot be sold, whether as a image, animation or anything. No monies may be generated in anyway, shape or form from the finished work containg the said item.

FastTraxx, can you be a little more specific? ;)

It's pretty obviouse what it means. Commercial refers to the business world. Where people make money. So if you use my objects for your own purposes, and you gain some cash from it(such as slling an animated flick with my clothes in it), and not giving na cut of it then you are breaking the "not for commercial use" rule. If you alter or improve someone elses objects you CANNOT sell them and keepthe money all to yourself. You also cannot sell them unless theoriginal creator agrees. Which they likely would not. Fastraxx said all he needed to. I hope that was a joke about beingspecific(dam thjis keyborad) The space bar don't woork well and some keys don't either. Bosses are cheap bastards.LOL JanP

joking about specific. thats what the ;) means. winky smile face sorry to hit an obvious sore spot JanP creators deserve a cut of profits unless they specify otherwise

I think spiffyandstuff does bring up a legitimate question. I always read the "readme.txt" files to find out what the model's creator has to say, and all of these messages vary widely. Some just "have fun", while others say you can make images, but don't re-sell the model, and frankly a thousand other variations that are in fact GREY. What WOULD be really helpful is someplace on this forum where a basic set of 3 or 4 categories could be drafted up and agreed to by model creators as to "what they intended to mean". A category 1. model might be completely restricted to no commerical use (NCU -like a movie rating) while a category 4. model might be Do Whatever You Like, etc. The creator could put this category in the readme and refer people to Renderosity or wherever for the complete details on what it means. Also, saving that the creator of the model "wants some of the money" is also a vague concept, and some type of basic understanding could also be drafted up to state basically what this means, and how the creator would be paid, etc. You can attack me all you want for suggesting this, but nobody else in the "real world" can operate without some type of guidelines. Especially when each "readme" file, isn't really clear about what the creator expects. Posting such guidelines at a well known public forum, like this one, might be really helpful to all concerned. It doesn't have to be a legal document, just a set of categories that can be referenced by everyone.

No attack here, I think you're on the money! You would have to list the catagories in each readme though, as someone might come here once, download something and then not know where they got it or what the catagories are. I agree with you about the guidelines though. I think if someone created a readme and we all vote on it then give it out as a template it would be great. It would make it easier on all of us. Marque

Sounds like a ok idea, but also keep in mind that not all items are Poser specific, I for example get hits from all over the 3D community, Game sites, Bryce Sites, Rhino sites, 3D Max, Vue, etc etc. While it is a good idea , it could also be very confusing for people outside of this community. Maybe whats needed if for a few well drafted and worded template readme files persons can use and customize to fit their needs. Ken

Sorry wyrwulf, I overlooked the smiley thingy. I'm not sore about any of this at all. I guess a copyright notice should be "stupified" So, rather than just saying "Not for Commercial Use" One should also just say, "Hey can't sell this or include this in any CD package without consent from the original creator and you have to give me a cut of the action JanP

Ok, here's another, what about the "no porn" statement, I've only seen one, but I ask because I posted a blowjob pic to renderotica using Rogue and Micheal, I found Rogue at 3d-cc.com it had no such comments in it's readme, but her creator (hardrider I think) later took offense at this with a posting to 3d commune, (about a month later.) Nothing was ever said to me except what I took to be a half joking comment by hardrider to my original pic. (called, "I wish" for those that wish to view the offending item.) The last time I checked, Rogue still had no such comment in the readme. Though apparently I'm now under watch by Marvel inc. (cue creepy music :) So, what say you great scribes? :) later jb

What if i've already lost the readme file for a few models and i don't remember if the objects possible uses were specified? What if the object isn't the focus? What if the object is changed before use? What if the object is changed in a post render? What if it is just a series of morph targets, can you really regulate morph targets? When it says not for commercial use, is there any real legal meaning or is commercial use just frowned upon? Anyone who doesn't believe it to be a grey area hasn't properly analized the situation. How can someone say "not for commercial use" when the object is posted on a free download site, your giving out for use. In fact, it seems that to post it on a free download site you are forfeiting all legal rights if there's no copyright. I never thought this subget would generate so much stir. Anyone with an opinion please respond.

Well, at risk of sounding pompous, I guess it works like this, in civil suits, you, "the guilty party" have to prove that, "the angelic creator" is in the wrong, and you have to be able to pay to prove it, since the creators will be the one's getting the damages claimed against you, and you have to stomach the legal fees. This is how the Scientologists do it, they simply sue the little guy, knowing full well that they can't afford to prove them wrong. It sucks, but we have a legal system, not a "justice" system. I think you'll find that "the law" says that ignorance is no defense, "my dog ate the readme file..." tough! I'm not a lawyer, ("but I use brand X, Mmmm, tastes good!" :) but I think you'll find that the applicable law is "fair use" part of the copyright law. Copyright is a fairly informal law, it says that all you have to do is prove you, wrote/built/published the said item for copyright to subsist on that item, at which point if you sell it, then it's against the law for others to use it without paying. You get to use parts, (but not all) of it for personal use only, but if you use any of it comercially, you have to pay. Think karaoke, then think "sampling" or "covering" records. Something can be public domain, but still copyright, think the GPL, the GNU Public License, (commonly known as "copyleft") which says you can do what the hell you want with the code, feed it to grandma, burn it as part of some wierd satanic ritual, use it as a frisbee, or even (shock horror!) create programs with it. What you can't do is sell it without the "owners" permission, and if you change it, it must be made available like the rest of it. Nothings says you can't "embrace and extend"/"innovate" (Copyright Bill Gates, AKA "the devil" :) but the part that the copyright subsists on, belongs to you and you can use lawyers with impunity. So mote it be! Linux, (our last best hope against the "evil empire" tm :) is protected by the GPL, if you stick it on a bit of code, (any bit of code) then you (and it) are covered, it's a legal document. I'd suggest that anyone really interested in such things points thier browser at www.gnu.org where it's explained in detail and available for free. Like the man says, "think freedom of speech, not free beer!" :) What's to stop you from not tipping your hat to the man who's model your using, the fear of what might happen if you don't. later jb

Regardless if its on a "free download site" or not, The creator does not lose or forfeit any rights. He/She does take the risks of having them abused by people who dont give a crap about anyone's rights besides themselves. Its as simple as this-Not everyone wants you to make money off their labor and never see anything of it themselves. They took the time to make the object, and were nice enough to share it with the community, the least you could do is respect their wishes by not making money off their labors. As for Marvel keeping a eye on anyone here, I seriously doubt that, They are having enough trouble of their own trying to keep from going bankrupt(again). Im not sure about the legalities concerning morph targets-since those are actually modified portions of a mesh created by someone else(usually Zygote). As to the Calvin Klien instance, technically they could charge someone for including their recognizable brand-that get's into a whole different area called intellectual rights. Coca-Cola paid $1 million dollars to have their Coke logo appear on the Jumbotron in the Superman movies, Marlboro(Philip Morris) paid close to the same amount to have one of their trucks get mauled in the same movie., What it boils down to, is if you didnt make it, you dont have anyrights to it, other than what the creator will allow, if they dont want it used in any money making venture, then don't include it in your work. Most of the guys(gals) around here are usually pretty easy going about this, some are not, this is a fact of life, all we can do is respect their wishes, if we dont then dont be surprised if they just up and stop providing stuff for the community to use for free, or they publicly chastise you for going against their wishes. The first step in making sure people respect your rights, is to respect theirs concerning their creations. Ken

When I post morphs and other stuff, the terms I put forth are as follows: You may not redistribute this [product] commercially. That means, you may not make profit redistributing it on a CD or charging for download from a site. I think it's asinine to make something, put it up for download, and then tell people they have to get permission to use renders in commercial purposes. Either you understand people are going to use it or you don't. If I'm doing an album cover for a band and it features a render of a scene with a handful of sci-fi props, the builders of those props cannot claim damages, because I'm not digging into their potential income. If I burn a CD with the source prop files on it and sell it, that's completely different. Part of the spirit of the copyright law is the implicit understanding that depictions are usually not reverse engineerable into the original objects. You can download my Nyla African-American head morph, use it in a scene, and sell signed lithographs of the scene for all I care. What you haven't done is provide a potential "thief" the necessary data to make a perfect copy. Take fonts for example. The courts have ruled that font foundries may sue for using copyrighted names, and if someone copies their font metrics (or translates between TrueType and PostScript) it's a theft (this happened about six years back). However, they ruled that the printed glyphs themselves were not copyrightable. No one can own the concept behind a particular shape for the letter 'f'. If I develop a lookalike font and give it a similar name, there isn't squat Adobe, Bitstream, etc. can do to me. Conversely, if I use their licensed fonts in a professional production, I am not obligated to give credit. What we upload here are design elements, which are used in artworks and whose images are not in the same category as registered trademarks. Zygote and other vendors do not expect any kind of credit or licensing for the use of their products, and would have a hard time in court explaining how they could only expect private use of a $350 model mesh. Because of this, they vigorously defend the theft of those meshes themselves. Again, I humbly ask you to ask yourselves: if you believe yourself to be the final arbiter of a prop's use, why are you uploading it here? Do you really believe a render of your prop is equivalent to the prop's .OBJ file?

I think the big fear is someone creates a model which is the used as the main item in a big ad campaign and the creator gets $100,000 now the model maker would be pretty pissed if he said use in anyway you see fit LOL.......ok a not likely scenario but you see my point. the best option if you intend using an item is to mail the maker and ask them, the few times i've had to do this they have said "sure go ahead" most just want to know what there getting used for rather than a wad of cash, on a personal note my answer is always "yes feel free can i look at the end product" or "yes feel free the fact that you own a PW cd gives you comercial rights to all mine and Rena's items free or for sale (check with any contributed parts though)".....Steve PS forgive the non intentional plug :o)

Ken: Coke paying a million dollars for a product placement is a service fee. It has nothing to do with copyright. If I made a racist movie about killing blacks where the protagonists were swilling Cokes left and right, the company could sue for unfairly associating their product with the movie's message and potentially bringing a boycott of the product -- in other words, clearly definable damages. Or they could sue simply because I was duping viewers into thinking I had a product placement and Coke was OK with my message, defamation of their corporate image. As for Morph Targets, if they've been squished all you have is a data file containing a nebulous (literally) cloud of points with no description of their relationship to one another. No possible way of reconstructing the head's mesh. Period. I would also humbly point out that most of us have invested at least half a grand into our 'hobby,' a pursuit with clear commercial potential. While that is no justification for theft, it's unreasonable to expect and entice us to download high quality freebies and then have no use of them outside of this forum and a few personal web pages.

Serious? I should hope not :) Anything I've ever put up, people can take, I don't care, but that's not the point, the point is, "the law says..." If you do care, then add a legal license to your stuff, then its up to you to prosecute, since copyright is a civil statute. If you do prosecute you'll likely win, and the loser gets crucified by the system, they get a criminal record for "free" but they have to pay both sides legal costs. In most "punitive" actions it's the legal costs that do the real damage. This is the law, lawyers make a lot of money out if it. They started making even more money when they decided to do the "no win, no charge" deal, hence the glorious legal money spinner that is personal injury law. The choice is yours, if you want to be able to protect your stuff, use the GPL, it's simple, effecive, and more importantly, proven in court. If somebody pisses you off, you sue them, they can't afford to pay, you win, pull back, run titles, fade out. If you don't care, don't license it and don't complain. The question here is more whether people see themselves as "lawyers at dawn" people or not, because once you sic the law on somebody's ass it won't stop untill it's done, and the consequences for the loser of a civil suit are always of a "permanent" nature. We are no longer children, and if we don't "play nice with others" then the law has a habit of rendering summary and final judgement. later jb

Duane, You do have a point there, although with Coke paying a service fee, its still to have their Trademarked intellectual properties included(its the same, but its also different). As for morph targets, like I said, I really dont know the legalities of them, I myself would think the same as you about them-I just dont know the gest of it concerning them. I myself dont mind my items being used commercially, as my read me file clearly states, make a million dollars off it, I dont care. All I ever ask is to not redistribute the files(objects)in any form or media other than images/videos/print/etc. Except for some of the comic characters-which cant be used commercially without permission from Marvel/Polygram/LucasFilm/etc.

I don't agree Tecn0mage, if you had a client wanting an image created and you knew the perfect model was available for free, now lets say it was a complex model that took 20 hours to create thats 20 hours the guy/gal saved you, or if you couldn't model its a big wad of cash you or the client saved so why not bung a bit the modelers way........the way it works is some folks model some folks render (some lucky gits do both LOL) we work together, I have clients that get to know costings so a company says "can you do this" ...they go away and think we want $XX for the image Steve will want $XX for the modeling we'll charge the company XX+XX......if your gonna work proffesionally you gotta play by the rules are you'll end up getting caught out eventually......Steve

ps. maybe the coke/marlboro comment should have not been included in the previous post-Im still half awake so please just ignore that comment completly :)

I agree Tecn0mage and it sucks, insurance costs here in the uk will rocket with the adverts on tv for lawyers wanting to sue for accidents..........but thats not the point, infact this is a pointless argument anyway coz if the readme says no comercial use you gotta ask the creator anyway, its black and white, no argument, you can't get out of it :o)...Steve

I agree with you there Techn0, I really dont see a point in posting an item for use and not being allowed to use it. For example, awhile back someone had posted a Lady Death figure and their readme says you cant use this in any image without my permission first. Thats just insane, why post it if you cant use it even in a image. The guy (if I remember right) got really bent over people posting images with his figure(which was a rendition of a property owned by Choas! Comics)

And moreover, the very first gallery posting I did here was of actress Jill Hennessy...which was built off of that Lady Death figure. Not much resemblance, would you say.

but it is cut and dry thats my point.....my way of looking at it is unless the read me file says "yes you can use it any way" then i need to ask permission, the next step is is it worth it in cost and man hours to make it myself or should i ask what it will cost to use it.......as for the lady death scenario that was just silly........Steve

my way of thinking is if a guy makes a comic and sells it for $1 and uses one of my dresses i'm not going to sue him i'll just ask for a comic so i can show friends and say look i'm famous LOL....but if i dloaded a hair model and used it in a preview image for one of my CD's the maker might sue me and i want my arse covered LOL.......Steve

Again, these suits (at least in the States, I don't know what you do in countries whose laws remember the Middle Ages) are based off the concept of damages, not permissions. Selling blackmarket Simpsons T-shirts is clear damage. Making free bootlegs of Star Trek bloopers is still damage because Paramount could conceivably sell those in a compilation tape. Neither of these cases is hypothetical. Using a prop in a render is not the same as giving the prop away. Period. The maker of the prop would have to demonstrate that there was a profit potential in releasing images of the prop that you were cutting into. And the moment they try that, the question of why they put the prop in a usable domain (e.g. sales) comes into play. Can't have it both ways. Just because something is in a set of terms given with a file does not make terms legal. Any contract, like a will, is contestable, and the more absurd the terms the less likely they'll stand up.

Based upon what has already been established as a general practise, Zygote, the "master modelmaker" sells their models without any further binding requests for "some of the money" should it be used in a commercial rendering. This also seems to be the practise at the Poser stores- purchasers get to use the models in commercial renders without any other fees. Just DON'T sell or re-distribute the original meshes or textures. So it would seem fair and logical that anyone posting a model as "Free Stuff" is making a statement that it is free. When Zygote does this, it still states NO selling or re-distribution, etc. This seems to be the prevailing practice. So if a modelmaker wants "some money", a fee for commercial use should be stated in the readme file- like $15-$25 since this seems to be the general price range (more or less) This gives any commercial renderer the option of paying a known fee and avoiding any futher legal hassle, rather than a totally unknown amount. It is very unlikely that a model will show up in a major Hollywood production anyway. I doubt that Pixar would be downloading Poser models for their next animated film. Most renderers are not making big money from Poser model renders, and those that might be are probably doing extensive Photoshop post-production on them to the point that they would be hard to identify anyway.

With what you just said "The maker of the prop would have to demonstrate that there was a profit potential in releasing images of the prop that you were cutting into." If the license agreement said not for commercial use, and you use it anyway in a image that was for sale, then there is your proof of profit potential. If the creator states its not to be used commercially, then dont, there is no if, ands, or buts about it. becuase its posted freely for use non commercialy, doesnt mean the creator loses or gives up any rights for it. It means its not to be used in images, animations, etc for profit. its pretty cut and dry. Im not pointing this directly at you Duane, so please dont take it that way, I was just using your comment to stress a point. If it says no commercial use, there shouldnt be any questions about it.

we could debate this forever and we all have valid points, but personally i'm gonna make sure i have my ass covered just incase :o).........Steve

BTW, as far as commercial use of base Poser models is concerned, I'm reasonably convinced Ananova.com's virtual newscaster is Posette with a (very few) morphs, or at least the mesh Zygote designed for her (which they admit to selling other places). Zygote's not seeing a dime off it, or even receiving admission from Digital Animations in Glasgow that they're using it (other people here say the animations are done in LightWave).

Well if Zygote built it then you can bet they got paid to build it Or it was taken from Poser Whioch I doubt. A model gets only a one time fee. I mean like I need a model so I pay you to build it. From there I can use it in anything I want however many times I wish. Because hile you built it. I bought it and now own it. But I can never say I created it. BTW the skins that come with Media Player 7 are zygote Poser Dork and Posette. Don't forget that Zygote use to, if not now make models for all types of programs. I.E. 3ds Poser figures are merely Poserfied Zygote models. At least up to Michael but I'd expect micheal will be available from them for whatever

Hi, I understand the "profit" thing, which is why I suggested the GPL, this is a "license" which by it's terms says that "use of" the thing licensed means you agree to it. Of course it's contestable, but are you willing to pay to contest it? The thing with a license like the GPL isn't profit, it was designed to protect the rights of people who freely give away thier work, (again, "free speech, not free beer") but wish to retain control over how it is used. Because of this, the issue becomes, "did you break the license aggrement" not, "did you profit from it", this is a lot easier to prove, and since it's a civil matter, if you lose, you pay costs. It's designed to be used against big companies, who have the money and do profit from shit like this, hence damages are in order, etc. But the law applies equally to individuals too, it doesn't matter if you can't pay costs. You'll have to declare bankrupcy, and you have a court judgement against your name, which screws your credit rating, (even if bankrupcy doesn't) I'm not saying it's right, but it is legal. Everyone saying otherwise isn't going to change that. It doesn't matter if you think it's stupid, if you get slammed with a lawsuit can you afford the time and money to fight? Can you afford to lose? It's legal blackmail... But! It's very easy to do, and very difficult, time consuming and expensive to undo, all you have to do is include the GPL with your file, along with the readme or in place of it. Either way, you then have the option to sue. Everone thinks it a joke untill the summons arrives... Trust me on this one, it wouldn't be so widely used if it hadn't passed through several lawyers already, it was intended to stop software companies making a profit on work that wasn't thiers, and to preseve an ideal that hackers of the world are very serious about preserving, creative freedom. the ability to make something for your fellow hacker (artist) and give it away free, but to retain control over how it is used. If you went to court over the GPL, you could bet that GNU would fund you, because if the GPL fails, the myriad hackers that depend on it have no protection. This is not a game! The issue still remains one of would you sue, not if... For the defendant it becomes an issue of if you can afford to lose or not, not whether you think you're right or wrong, that part is accademic once the legal jugenaut starts rolling, at that point the cost of losing escaltes out of all proportion to the "crime" committed. This is the way the legal system works, somebody must lose. later jb

My personal opinion: Most of the modellers had many hours to create some pieces, in most of the cases they feel good their pieces where used in images. They give their creations for free while having fun to model it, they don't want to make money and also don't want that others make money without of recognice of that. It's not the point that the modeller want some of the money, he wants to know that someone makes money with his pieces (Feedback). If you save time because you can donload things for free, why not use a little bit of this saved time for asking about permission. I personally had never received a "no" when asking for redistribution, conversion of pieces with some of my characters. All the times the original creator had given me the OK and a thanks while asking first. And thats the same i do, i had and would never say "no" because i feel good if someone use my creations. SHARKEY

Mostly in reply to post #10- Here's what I use. I hope it avoids any ambiguity. You guys can all tell what this means right? Liscense Info: You can use it in any kind of rendered artwork for fun or profit but do not sell or redistribute the texture maps or CR2 files. If your computer explodes it's not my fault. I don't want people to resell my products but I also don't want them worrying that I'm going to get mad if they make whatever kind of images. I am not the thought police and I can't imagine doing that.

I have read several mentions of the GPL here. The GPL DOES allow EVERYONE to sell stuff put under GPL, they just force him to tell everybody he sell itz that he has the same Right too. If someone here puts his stuff under GPL, any kind of commercial gain is allowed. The GPL just states that everyone can give copyleft stuff away for free or for money. So the GPL dos not help you at all to protect your work, it just guarantees that your work and any other work which is based on you work, can be given away for free OR for money by EVERYONE. So few people here would use the GPL.

Attached Link: http://spiffyandstuff.homestead.com/main.html

Well, this is where i see some arguments going and i must disagree. When a model maker (like zygote) creates an model and distributes it with any fee, including no fee, (zero is a number too) they give up all post render rights. Though they do have legal rights concerning redistribution of the file. I think everyone has gotten away from the real question. It's not about who can sue who. The question is whether a render of the object is allowed to be controled. I say no. The .obj's author certainly has say in the file, but does it make sense that they have any post render rights. When you render it it is no longer an .obj or code but your artwork, an image you created. The product is put into distribution (free or otherwise), when i render it, it becomes my property. If i'm not mistaken the law says its not plagerism or a copyright infringment if whats in question is changed %50. Now, is the combonation of I's an O's changed by atleast %50 when it is rendered in an image. Nuts, now this question is on the second page, fewer people are going to see it, oh well. As always please respond!

Reality Check, Unless you file for a formal copyright and or trademark, legally then you are open to the abuse of any public domain material. You must file before releasing it to the public domain. Just slapping a commercial use statement on it or text stateing copyright does not make it so. It is better than nothing but any lawyer worth anything will shoot you full of holes. I have had to deal with these issues many times for professionally produced corporate products, logos, and other materials bothe audio and visual. Once it is out in the public domain and you do not have legal filings, you are on your own.

This has been my point all along. Artworks have composition. .OBJ files do not: they are abstractions with no 'instances' (to crib from programmers) of their own. Spending 72 hours on a figure's mesh won't make it an artwork (not until it's rendered). Commercial artists don't have difficulty understanding that. In the final analysis, Zygote and the people who contribute to Freestuff (myself included) make stencils, not artworks. Period. You may copyright them, but you can't set terms on their usage. We can spend another twenty posts dancing between the putative legalities of readme.txt files and being considerate of makers' wishes, but we should move on. I respect the point that people who feel their products are being misused may decide not to contribute any more, but it's time we woke up and recognized what's likely to happen and what isn't. If someone uses my Nyla morph to make a render of a stereotype African-American trying to buy cigarettes with food stamps, I have every right to be offended but it stops there. Meshes and textures are the intellectual property of their makers only as meshes and textures. Renders are the intellectual property of the renderers, not the meshmakers or even the texmappers. When General Motors can demand royalties from a published photo of a street scene that includes one of their cars, get back to me.

well said, i like it, i've been in ageement since the first post in that opinion.

well i might try to take that last post more seriously...... but come on, look at the grammar. SOP> apparently you didn't read the whole post, many people would agree that the rendering of the object is not incuded in the terms of use. The .obj is not being redistributed an image is! The author of the .obj is not the same as the artist who created a .jpg! I'm only picking on you because the poor word choice, people should really try to stay away from using languge made up by lazy internet junkies. Keep it in the chat room!

Based on the 15th post on this page in which fonts were an example it seems the courts would rule in favor of the artist who used an object not there own. Based on the information duanemoody provided it seems the render is not a copy of the initial file and therefore a rendered picture can be used anyway the artist sees fit. And it makes sense if you parrallel the two situations. Microsoft Word can be parralleled to poser, a .obj to a .ttf, and a written article to a render. If i use use a font downloaded of the internet that is not intended to be for commercial use and write something using that font that makes me thousands of dollars, the creator of the font still doesn't get anything. Same goes for a render assuming duanemoody's information is correct. A private citizen can say, "you can't do that" all they please, but the courts have apparently already or obviously would, rule in favor of no post render rights. So i think the argument for post render rights is over. Rendered its mine, as a file its yours.... Anyone disagree? >:( On a side note: these forums are fun, debates are fun!

But then Goecities has paid the fees and filed the copyrights and trademarks with the appropriate legal authorities. Just pasting the words is not enough. Do not mislead anyone here. If you put something out there and you do not file with the proper agency. Then you have very little to stand on. I am not going to start pasting copyright and trademark laws on this board as it is not the venu. You can jump up and down yell and scream all you wish. You cannot file for damages if you do not register legally first!

I disagree very strongly.......lets create a scenario...say a modeler makes a model of a car and takes 50 hours then gives it for free..then you get a client wants a render of a hot babe leaning over a car and will pay you $3000, you use the model car take the cash and give the modeler nothing????????????....can you honestly say that that is fair...tell you what if this ever starts happening you'll see a drying up of free stuff very quick......i am totally shocked at the selfish grabbing attitude of some of the folks here..Steve

Furthermore If you claim copyright to a creation, You are by law obligated to sent copies to the Library of Congress within 3 months. Failure to do so makes you liable to be fined by the US government. No one here is saying that you have no protection but unless you register, file and fullfill your obligations then you leave you creations open to unlimited use. Just attaching a statement is not enough!! The company I work for, everything goes through legal there are very specific rules as to what gets published, how it is published and nothing goes out on the public domain before being approved by legal. They make sure the companies rights are protected. We have lawyers on staff who's only job is to make sure that the companies rights are legally filed and protected. For the individual It does not cost alot, All it takes is a couple of bucks and some time and paperwork. So if you think your stuff is worth protection make the investment. If not or you don't, well as I said before you will not be standing on both legs. The mandatory filing copies to the Library of Congress should be taken note by all the artists on this site that attach a copyright notice to their images.

not if you live in the UK :o)......Steve

It's now better for staying out of this discussion, because i fell like an idiot. It's fun to model things and give it away for free, but after reading such disscussions i had to tell myself for what. Am i a idiot while giving everything for free, seems sometimes yes. LONG LIVES CAPITALISM. SHARKEY

Don't give up Robert, I had a "why bother" pang just earlyer but then i thought back about all the nice folks who have asked and it makes it all worth while again :o)....Steve

ok, this thread has stayed nice and polite for a good 47 messages. Just becuase someone doesnt have proper grammer, or doesnt use proper grammer is no reason to discredit someone. And what SOP siad is correct, If you download a item-whether its free or not and it includes terms of use with it. Then those are your terms of use, you either agree to them and abide by the creators wishes, or delete the file and dont use it at all. Becuase by ignoring the said terms you become liable for damages(not that any of us have the time or resources to pursue actions legally or would truly want to go that route)but you do become liable, and are subject to some form of repercussins from the creator. And according to coyright law, whether or not you have filed, once a item is created, it is automatically protected by copyright law, filing is only good for speeding up legal procedures. the following is taken directly from Circular 1-Copyright Basics provided by the US Copyright office: Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States(title 17, U.S. Code) tp the aithors pf "original works of authorship" including literay, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Sectiopn 106 of the Copyroght Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following: To reproduce the copyrighted work in copies. To prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work. To distribute copies of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. To display the copyrighted work publicly, in the case of pictoral, graphic, or sculptural works, including motion picture or other audiovisual work. It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by the Act to the owner of copyright. Copyright protection susists from the time the work is created in a fixed form:that is, it is an incident of the process of authorship. The copyright in the work of authorship immediatly becomes the property of the author who created it.

Lets put everything in perspective. I only make these remarks for your own protection. People put alot of their heart and soul into creations and then because the want to share they pop it out on the internet. Now that is great! Most of us really don't care if our stuff is used and usually are thrilled when it is. At most we would only want our name mentioned. But if you take your stuff more seriously and you do it not with the exclusive purpose of just increasing the creative treasury. Then take a little time and go the extra bit to insure that some big multi-million dollar company does not take advantage of you. Lets us also be realistic. A professional commercial corporation will not use your stuff. I'll tell you why. If it is on the public domain they cannot prove that you were actually the origionator. Who's to say you did not get it from somewhere else? They cannot afford to take such a risk. Their lawyers would not let them take that risk. It is far more preferable to commission a artist to create the material under contract for them. Or they will purchase it from a reputable stock supply house. This way they have undisputable rights to the material. The process that corporations use should give you a clue to how important it is to take the steps to protect your stuff if you have any other than a hobbiests interest in your work. I just wanted let everyone know as far as the law was concerned where they stand. Finally the finished work of art is the property of the artist. with the exception of images of live people. The owner of an object cannot lay claim to any pictures or paintings of the object. You can rent the object to some one to make a painting or take a photograph of it but that only applies to the object not to the image of the object. When a motion picture is made you need to get a release from any living person that is in the frame, to get the permission to distribute that persons image. But the cars and buildings and locations and props, are rented and the owner of the props only gets paid for their use. The owner of the props does not have any rights to the movie it's self. The same applies to electronic objects as well.

Part 2: page 8 concerning registration. In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though registration is not generally a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to to make registration. Among these advantages are the following: Registration estalishes a public record of the copyright claim; Before an infringment suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of the U.S. origin. If registration is made within 3 months after publication of the work or prior to an infringment of the work, statutory damages and attorney's fees will be available to the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and profits is available to the copyright owner. Registration may be made at any time within the life of the copyright.(Authors life span plus 50 years)

As far as the U.S. is concerned posts #56 and #58 information was taken directly from the Library of Congress Copyright office's Copyright Basics(Circular #1) which is available for free from their offices. after qouting theses facts-please refer to post #2 Ken