MANDATORY DEPOSIT FOR WORKS PUBLISHED IN THE UNITED STATES Although a copyright registration is not required, the Copyright Act establishes a mandatory deposit requirement for works published in the United States. See the definition of "publication." In general, the owner of copyright or the owner of the exclusive right of publication in the work has a legal obligation to deposit in the Copyright Office, within 3 months of publication in the United States, two copies (or in the case of sound recordings, two phonorecords) for the use of the Library of Congress. Failure to make the deposit can result in fines and other penalties but does not affect copyright protection.

SOP is correct according to my understanding. My sister went to law school and that's what she told me about it. Frankly no one can afford to sue over the amounts of money you'd be talking about anyway. Also what's legal and what's right are two different questions. I think the makers wishes should always be respected but try to keep the wishes reasonable too.

How about this: Play nice? 1) Respect the creator's wishes. 2) If you're not sure, e-mail the creator and ask. Personally, I think that the creator owns the model while you own the final image. If you make money off of the model with the rendering, you might want to consider repaying that creator in some way (if feasible.) Not because you are obliged to, but because you ought to. HandSpanStudios nailed it on the head.

SOP> Your job requires you to talk like some uneducated derelict, right. I doubt you make a lot of money, and if you do, i'm sure i'll dwarf your figures soon after i get out of college if not before graduation entirely. Anyhow, i'm curious as to your occupation.

SOP > Thank you for using plain english. My mother language is german and i have trouble to understand your every-day speak. To all: I would see it at least as being impolite to use a "non-commercial" prop in a "commercial" render without asking for an okay. But since we discuss legal status... If i would render a commercial picture with an non-commercial prop, which law would be applicable? German or ammerican law? If you would try to fry me on an american court how would you enforce it? If you plan to bring the case for a german court, how much would you pay for that? Ist it Practcable? What if I'm not in Germany, but in Spain (as far as I know they have a lousy copyright law there), or in Russia? I think every artist has the right to state the do's and don't's for his freestuff. If you can't live with that, then remember that noone likes spoilsports. ( Spielverderber? ) But calling the judges will not help in many cases. Just my two cents. I plan to put things into free stuff as soon as my works are goon enough for that. I think I will add a GPL type licence for them, but I have no problems with the "no commecial use" stuff. Uwe Schmidt

good enough, not goon enough > Typo. Uwe

A pro fighter..... hahahaha, i was right, you are an uneducated derelict! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I will try and brind a simple and less "legal" approach to this very long post. First of all...I find the answer rather simple. If someone says in their ReadMe file...that they don't want anyone to use it for comercial use (for profit)...then DON'T. Yes...perhaps that the creator is not 100% legally covered with a "Readme" file...but god damn it people...the guy is giving up his work for free...the least we can do is live by his wishes. Let's leave the courts out of this and use good judgement. And to spiffyandstuff...you said earlier that...what if the object in question is 50% changed...or modified...or whatever. It still remains the creators object. And most of all...if the object is so changed...why the hell use that object in the first place. Create one yourself. I have a simple solution to make the "Grey area" go away spiffyandstuff. If you are planing to sell artwork...sell artwork that only contains your own stuff...or stuff that has been bought for real without any strings attached. If a person says in the readme file...that they don't want you to use it for comercial use...then don't. Its the least you can do for all the great people giving us free stuff. I can't believe that people actually have to ask this question. Its like..."ohh well...It says I cant use it...but maybe legally I could still use it without trouble" Its a question of respecting the creators wishes...what is so damn hard to understand. If the guy/girl says "Non-comercial"...then DUH!!! Sorry if this sounds like a rude post...but I cant believe that I'm the 69th post here...and no one really seems to give any importance to the wishes of the author. Solo22

I don't care about what the law says, I've got lots of problems with anyone claiming any kinds of rights over a render made with their object, texture map, pose or whatever. As Steveshanks said, in a better world we would ask (and I have been asked, which I thought was very nice), but I never feel less than honored whenever I see a render that uses anthing I've made, either free or what I sell. And if PFO whats to include a boilerplate read-me on their freestuff to the effect of "not for commercial use" (and they are, incidently), that's O.K., because I only go over there once in awhile to see how weird they still are (and they never fail to impress me with their weirdness!), I would never download anything from there.

First, What's the pfo? Second, the questions is whether or not the modeler has the right to tell an artist what they can and cannot do with something that they give away for free. There's no specified agreement on any rules. When they GIVE it away they also GIVE up rights to it. Why do they have the right to tell someone what they can and cannot do with it. THEY GAVE IT AWAY! It was GIVEN to soemone else. why do they have the right to control it after they GAVE it away. I can't believe people think they have rights to something they GAVE away. I need something to do, i'm running low on ideas. Don't take offense to what i say, i'm just looking for soem conflict, it's fun. I don't know about anyone else but when i post a mean nasty comment i probably don't mean it, i'm just looking for a reaction, after i can't wait to see how people respond. In all reality i would propbably like most of you considering we share a strong common interest. And just so everyone knows, i don't use other people's objects at all if they are not for commercial use. I just thought it should be discussed. Don't forget to tell me what this pfo is, thanks

PFO? Sad that you do not know of the this, however, we should not all assume that everyone must know that PFO stands for Poser Forum Online. spiffyandstuff, may I have a word with you here please? Seems to be no remorse in what you say whatsover, as if all this freestuff you gather should be yours to do with as you please because it is FREE! Tough bananas on all these artists and creators that labored so very hard to bring these items to you. Why should you respect their wishes, they are all just idiots for giving away all that stuff to you for free, so why not take advantage of their good simaritan ways!! I do not like the tone of this you say whatsover. It stinks big time. I started working on a comic months ago. I went out of my way to go through four gigs of zip files that I thought I may use at some time trying desperatly to contact everyone I could to ASK them if it would be okay for me to use their items and characters for my project. This took me longer than any one rendering I ever did for the comic. But I felt it had to be done because I would have felt like shit if I had just started assuming it was okay and went ahead, even with the ones that had nothing stipulating anything in them. It took me a looong time but I did eventually find MOST of the authors, and those that I did not I still attempted to find through others. I admit that there are some that just were so elusive, whether because they no longer existed or perhaps no one actually knew where the file came from, but I know I tried. One by one I contacted everyone to let them know about what I wished to do. I also made them aware that it may eventually be a commercial thing, and that I would do my best to give credit where credit is due. It was to my own surprise that EVERYONE was so very generous and did indeed allow me the graciousness of letting me use there craetions for my project. You cannot fathom the good feeling this gave me. What also surprised me was that a few were actually touched that I would even go out of my way to ask them so eloquently, but WHY NOT!!!?? Some even asked me why the heck I was even asking? Kinda floored me! They work so hard on this stuff, one really should NOT assume it's for us to just do whatever with. Heck, sure, I could have just gone ahead, as you say, and used whatever and saved myself a lot of time and effort. But I tell you this much spiffyandstuff, I am sooo GLAD that I did what I did because that feeling of joy that overwhelmed me to have so much support from so many, a lot of whom I actually did not even know, when they all gave me that permission I asked for, it was like such a wonderful feeling, I cannot even describe it to you. All I know is that it sure is sweet not having to feel any guilt about using props and characters from others on a project knowing full well that they know I am using them. It uplifts a great burden. The only thing I concern myself with now is that I hope like hell I am able to make all these wonderful folks proud of their work through my art, because I believe that is the main reason they create all this stuff most of the time, because they would like to see their hard work displayed as best and as beautifully as possible, and yes, they would all like to be recognized for their efforts. What the hell is wrong with that now, hmmm!? They made the stuff, and just like we work hard as hell to create the artwork, they toiled hard to create that which we labor with to make our masterpieces. The least you can do is show all these people, these artists and creators the courtesy of trying to ASK them if what you do with their things is okay? It is just the polite thing to do. You will find that most, if not all, are willing to go out of their way to actually help you if you show them the recognition they too deserve for their hard work!!! Please do this for what is right, because that is just what it is, "right". To just go ahead and USE this stuff to your hearts content without any respect for the authors wishes is just blatantly ignorant and also quite lazy on your part and will cause nothing but trouble for the community as a whole. If all the wonderful people that bring all this freestuff to us STOP bringing it to us because of attitudes such as yours YOU too will suffer, along with all the rest of the 3D Community, and I wonder if perhaps then you may feel just a little more hindsite as to what you just stated above, and wished you had not.

{When they GIVE it away they also GIVE up rights to it.} Not always true - when you release something, you have the right, legally (I think; I'm not a lawyer), to restrict it's use, whether you give it up freely or sell it. And some sales licenses also restrict commercial use (or even include a graduated scale based on intended use)... Usually there is a contract of some form involved - that contract can be a general statement (like the PFO has been developing, and the 3D Commune has also briefly discussed) that lists basic usage rights, or it can be a detailed document, like the licensing agreement that comes with, say, Poser 4... By downloading the item, you have implicitly accepted the terms of that contract, whatever it may be.

I just started 3d artwork not more than a year ago and i've only been a member of renderosity for about two weeks. Is it that surprising that i didn't know what pfo stood for? My attitude is not a problem i'm just arguing points. Like i earlier stated, i don't use non-commercial use objects, and if i find myself often using an object i do contact the modeler and thank them. If everybody had my attitude there wouldn't be non-commercial use objects. As soon as i get the chance to upload models, i will and for free without restrictions. I'm not a bad guy.

Uhhh, hopefully you have learned since the day of uploading your models how to compress your files. Not like the filesizes of your images. Maybee more would see them, because they're good, but more then 300 and 500Megs is too much to wait. Have a look on the net for "Garage", theirs a tool which compress your images automatically. And i'm really happy you didn't use non-commercial objects (for the moment). Hahahaha The 2 cents of one of this idiots. SHARKEY

I don't follow what your saying?

He means your picture renderings are too rich, too intense, too big for the average user to view because they take far too long to load through a modem; which means you should try to lean them up more in an application such as Photoshop or Photopaint or as Sharkey suggests, "Garage". spiffyandstuff, you may find a LOT of folks here haven't been doing 3D stuff forever, fact is a lot of folks are new, and really, the forums haven't been around for an eternity. Just seems like one when one thinks of all the hoots and howls the forums have been through in their short life span. A shame really, but what can ya do. As for your attitude, you do have one, otherwise you wouldn't be argueing this common sense point in the first place and realize other artists and creators have feelings and need to be respected for their work without you bringing up such less than polite and far from acceptable remarks.

As for my attitude, if i really didn't care about the non commercial use message, i wouldn't have started this thread. When I initiated the question it wasn't because i wanted to argue. It was because the non commercial use message seemed like a grey area, i was right. We're approaching 100 reply's and still no correct, cut and dry answer. And as i stated, i do not use non commercial use objects at all. At first, i didn't plan to use other people's objects at all, but i soon found that on my budget it is nearly immpossible to produce any good quality poser work without them. I'm not using the "no post render rights" argument so i can justify using these objects either. I will never use other poeple's objects if they don't want them used. The fact is, however, it is not a cut and dry case (legally or ethically). I'm just trying to balance the argument because it seems to be going in one direction. I could just as easily argue the other side. If the "no post render rights" side started winning i might very well argue the opposite side under a different log in. I do feel, however, that for a modeler to put something out and be upset if it gets used, that is is petty. But none of the modelers have yet said that they would actually be upset. I know its impossible to fulfill my requests if i'm arguing "the other side," but don't take offense to things i say. Just because i'm arguing that side doesn't meen i necsecarily agree with it. Thanks for the art praise sharkey, where exactly did you see it? And exactly which peice did you like?

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

>>>First, What's the pfo?<<< Poser Forum Online. >>>Second, the questions is whether or not the modeler has the right to tell an artist what they can and cannot do with something that they give away for free. There's no specified agreement on any rules.<<< Yes, there is. It is called copyright law. It is also known as the Berne Convention on International Copyright Protection or some equally noble sounding title. The United States and MOST of the civilized world belong to it. >>>When they GIVE it away they also GIVE up rights to it.<<< No, they do not. Again, copyright law. >>>Why do they have the right to tell someone what they can and cannot do with it.<<< Again, copyright law. >>>THEY GAVE IT AWAY! It was GIVEN to soemone else.<<< Irrelevant. >>>why do they have the right to control it after they GAVE it away.<<< In case this has not been mentioned, copyright law gives them that right. >>>I can't believe people think they have rights to something they GAVE away.<<< Arthur C. Clarke GIVES you a copy of his book. That doesn't mean you can produce a movie from it. >>>I need something to do, i'm running low on ideas.<<< Read a book on copyright law. Or, at the very least, visit the linked site. It is not in lawyer-speak nor does it go into great depth, but it does shatter at least 10 of the greatest myths in regard to copyright. You may not SEE the protection or you may DISAGREE with the protection, but the protection is still there.

When I initiated the question it wasn't because i wanted to argue. It was because the non commercial use message seemed like a grey area, i was right.<<< No, you were not. >>>We're approaching 100 reply's and still no correct, cut and dry answer.<<< No, you just do not appear to agree with that cut and dry answer. >>>The fact is, however, it is not a cut and dry case (legally or ethically).<<< And that is where the problem looms. Even if we were to accept your argument that it was not "cut and dry" legally (Though it is), it is DEFINITELY cut and dry ethically. If you cannot see that then we are on different wavelengths completely.

To Spiffyandstuff: I've seen your pictures here on the gallery, but only while i have the luck to surf with a ISDN-Modem. I like the Neon-Girl, because the colors of her make-up goes close to the background. SHARKEY

Yes, there is. It is called copyright law. It is also known as the Berne Convention on International Copyright Protection or some equally noble sounding title. The United States and MOST of the civilized world belong to it.<<< We're not discussing copyright laws, so your argumentitive reply is without purpose. If you had bothered to read any of the other replys you would have seen the copyright issue has already been resolved. >>>No, they do not. Again, copyright law.<<< You're comments are again worthless, we're not talking about copyright. >>>Again, copyright law.<<< Again, not the issue. >>>Irrelevant.<<< You are once again wrong. >>>In case this has not been mentioned, copyright law gives them that right.<<< In case this has not been mentioned, copyright laws aren't the issue. >>>Arthur C. Clarke GIVES you a copy of his book. That doesn't mean you can produce a movie from it.<<< You see, cas, Arthur C. Clarkes book has what is called a copyright on it, thats why you can't make a movie about it. And you would be right, if you weren't wrong. You seem a bit slow so let me repeat myself, we aren't talking about copyright laws. >>>Read a book on copyright law. Or, at the very least, visit the linked site. It is not in lawyer-speak nor does it go into great depth, but it does shatter at least 10 of the greatest myths in regard to copyright.<<< Read the other replys. Or at least check out what the name of this thread is, objects and the "not for commercial use" statment. Now does the thread name mention anything about copyright laws? Besides your own , does the word "copyright" even show up in the last forty posts? >>>No, you were not.<<< Yes i was correct, if it weren't a grey area there wouldn't be so many replys. >>>No, you just do not appear to agree with that cut and dry answer.<<< I can't believe how many times you have been wrong. No it is not cut and dry. If it were, i repeat, there wouldn't be so many replys. >>>And that is where the problem looms. Even if we were to accept your argument that it was not "cut and dry" legally (Though it is), it is DEFINITELY cut and dry ethically. If you cannot see that then we are on different wavelengths completely. <<< I think you would agree the courts make the decisions. If you had bothered to read the posts you would see that they have ruled in the favor of both arguments on paralleled cases. As for ethically it is absolutly not cut and dry, there are so many ways to look at it. If you cannot see that then we are on different wavelengths completely.

As for peregrinator, if you don't care to read it, then don't. Nobody made you read it and nobody asked you to post an nasty message. I doubt that SixPacWolf carews to here what you have to say either. Thanks Sharkey, it means a lot.

We're not discussing copyright laws, so your argumentitive reply is without purpose. If you had bothered to read any of the other replys you would have seen the copyright issue has already been resolved. <<< I have read ALL the other replies. Your question, since you seemed to have forgotten it was -- "Second, the questions is whether or not the modeler has the right to tell an artist what they can and cannot do with something that they give away for free. There's no specified agreement on any rules." And the answer to that is copyright law. The fact that you apparently do not like the answer does not detract from its accuracy. >>>You're comments are again worthless, we're not talking about copyright.<<< Question after question in your message is answerable with two words, the two words you seem desperate to avoid for some reason -- COPYRIGHT LAW. What gives the creator the power to state how his creation can be used? COPYRIGHT LAW. You made the statement that -- "When they GIVE it away they also GIVE up rights to it." and 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. You were and are wrong. Why? COPYRIGHT LAW. And the volumes of legal precedent supports the conclusion that you were and are wrong. You asked for opinions and Im giving mine. Sorry to force you into a hissy fit just because the truth does not conform to your bottom-line. >>> >>>Arthur C. Clarke GIVES you a copy of his book. That doesn't mean you can produce a movie from it.<<< You see, cas, Arthur C. Clarkes book has what is called a copyright on it, thats why you can't make a movie about it. And you would be right, if you weren't wrong. You seem a bit slow so let me repeat myself, we aren't talking about copyright laws.<<<<<< And the same protections that apply to Mr. Clarkes book, apply to a mesh. I will ignore your ongoing insults as I have seen it many times in children when they are not getting their way. >>> >>>Read a book on copyright law. Or, at the very least, visit the linked site. It is not in lawyer-speak nor does it go into great depth, but it does shatter at least 10 of the greatest myths in regard to copyright.<<<<<< Read the other replys. Or at least check out what the name of this thread is, objects and the "not for commercial use" statment. Now does the thread name mention anything about copyright laws? Besides your own , does the word "copyright" even show up in the last forty posts?<<< Irrelevant. The right that you questioned that gives the creator of those objects you are coveting to decide how they may or may not be used is the right given them by copyright. Oh, and at least 5 of the last forty posts discussed and/or mentioned copyright. >>> >>>No, you were not.<<< Yes i was correct, if it weren't a grey area there wouldn't be so many replys.<<<<<< You stated earlier that the copyright issue has already been resolved. Which is it? Resolved or a grey area? So, the number of replies determines accuracy? Truth? Or would it be more accurate to assume that the vast majority of those here are artists, many of them very, very good artists who have little or no legal knowledge and have never believed that they might need to protect themselves against someone who believes -- When they GIVE it away they also GIVE up rights to it. >>>>>>No, you just do not appear to agree with that cut and dry answer.<<< I can't believe how many times you have been wrong. No it is not cut and dry. If it were, i repeat, there wouldn't be so many replys.<<<<<< You have a great deal of growing up to do, boy. This is only one of many posts that is evidence of that. Here is one principle to learn The number of replies is NOT directly proportional to the relevant truth. >>>>>>And that is where the problem looms. Even if we were to accept your argument that it was not "cut and dry" legally (Though it is), it is DEFINITELY cut and dry ethically. If you cannot see that then we are on different wavelengths completely. <<< I think you would agree the courts make the decisions.<<<<<< Thank you! Yes, they do. And the volume of their decisions in regards to the rights of the creator and his COPYRIGHT protections proves your assumptions and statements to be self-justifying, self-serving inaccuracies. The question is what is it you are trying to justify? >>>If you had bothered to read the posts you would see that they have ruled in the favor of both arguments on paralleled cases.<<< No. I saw opinions, respected opinions, from other members. There were no case rulings quoted. >>>As for ethically it is absolutly not cut and dry, there are so many ways to look at it. If you cannot see that then we are on different wavelengths completely.<<< If Sharkey makes an object and says This may not be used for commercial purposes of any kind. Id say that is pretty damn cut and dried. Id say that that object is Sharkeys and if he doesnt want it used commercially then it doesnt get used commercially. Why? (Here comes that damn word you hate so much!) COPYRIGHT. Ethically, it would be theft if used contrary to Sharkeys expressed wishes. Period. And that IS the ONLY way it should be looked at. YOU obviously do not see it that way. For that reason alone, I am very glad we are on different wavelengths. And for that reason, you have also shown you are not worthy of further time. I only hope that the artists in this community keep wary eyes on you. SWOOOOOOSH! ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss PLONK!

This thread never should have gotten farther than post #2 ~Ken

Well, what has this discussion tell to me ? 1. I have changed my new readme-files to: "COPYRIGHT & DISTRIBUTION: By using this downloaded file, User agrees to abide by the following conditions of this agreement: AT NO TIME are these works to be re-distributed or sold without written notification from the copyright holder. There's no limitation about using them in images." 2. I wish Spiffyandstuff the intention he needs to stay save in the life and don't have to learn about this in the hard way. (Means the way who can cost a lot of money) Maybee in the future if he also creates things i'm shure he will remember back what his opinion was. I'm also shure, then he will laugh all about his words he has typed here. Personal note to Spiffyandstuff: See deep in your heart and you will feel what's the right way. Have now disabled the mailing-notification, means this discussion is closed for me. SHARKEY

Now isn't this all such a shame huh? Seems no matter what some folks just don't get it nohow!! You know what they say, you can lead a thristy ass to water but can you make it drink??? You tell me.

Cas, do you understand that you have to get a copyright? It doesn't just materialize when you say, "i have a copyright." Do you understand that, does it register? Now, look at the name of the thread. In your next reply retype the name of the thread, just to make sure you understand that copyright is not the issue. Nobody seems to understand that i don't use non-commercial use objects. I've repeatedly stated this but, apparently the majority of the people replying to this post are about as slow as cas. I'll leave it at this, just because i'm arguing in the favor of a controversial issue doesn't mean i am in favor of that issue. I have stated this in nearly every one of my recent posts, talk about thick cambriums. Cripes, i can't believe people are so defensive about a silly little hobbie. Sharkey> i know perfectly well what is right, i have a fine set of ethics.

for you it might be a silly little hobby, as for myself, Im steadily being paid for my work. And to set the record straight, the creator automatically obtains copyright from the moment his/her item is created-without the need to officially file it in the copyright office. Ken

It's not just the fact that your continuing to argue about this stuff all the time spiffy, but it's your attitude that's making this all kinda a busy thread. It's a sensitive issue to all the folks that toil with this stuff and your making it sound like a bunch of baloney that means diddly about them all having rights to put restrictions on their things. Can we start selling YOUR work now? I think I know of a nice pay site that may just take your work and post it and I don't think you'll mind since it don't matter, I am sure you didn't copyright it anyways, right?

I'm not taking peoples finished artwork and selling it. I am substantially changing the combonation of I's and O's. I know perfectly well that taking an object i get for free and selling the file is beyond wrong. But the argument is whether the render of an object is the same as the file of an object. I'm curious as to how fasttraxx figures that coyrights automatically come into creation with the stating of its existence. I can't imagine how he could be right, but if he is i suppose that blows radarts argument. On a side note> Where is this pay site. (If pettyness prevents you from exposing this information, I will understand) Well, on behalf of all of you i will let the argument rest, and as things so often happen in this PC society. I will keep my opinions to my self, refrain from further stating my opinion, and in the future, i will do my very best to conform to that of the majority. I apologise if i have upset, offended, or hurt anyone. I now see that even the complaint and debate forum has been corrupted by the majority. I am sorry for my opinion, please don't hold it against me. I will no longer post replys on this issue.

Copyright protection exists 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.-Circular 1,Copyright Basics provided by the US Copyright office. That is how copyright is obtained-the moment you create it, you own the copyright to it. It does not have to be formally registered to own the copyright. I dont figure anything about it-The info Ive qouted is directly from the US Copyright office, and as far as teh USA is concerned-thats the law, its also the same with the majority of the International copyright laws. I have no problem with yuo stating your opinion, or have anything against you, it's just this thread has been going for so long, and rehashing the same thing over and over, there honestly is no debate about the commercial use of objects-The creator of a object automatically by law owns full copyright to his/her creation, and under those same laws have every right to dictate the use of their creatoin. we might not like that, We might not agree to that-but that is the law-plain and simple-cut and dry.

Spiffy........there IS NO pay site! It was a sarcastic remark. Your artwork? Copyright? People's files? Copyright? I was trying to MAKE a point? Kinda FLEW right past ya? Wow!

{Cas, do you understand that you have to get a copyright? It doesn't just materialize when you say, "i have a copyright." Do you understand that, does it register? Now, look at the name of the thread. } You have a technical copyright the moment a work is deemed "finished." For an enforceable, legal copyright, you SHOULD have an attorney or CPA sign an affadavit proving you created the product, but that is not - and should not be - required in all cases. Trademarks have to be registered (I know; my company is running into a road-block on this count!); copyrights are an implied right that CAN - but does not HAVE TO BE - registered to hold.

From the US Federal Code, Title 17, Section 302 "Duration of copyright": "In General. - Copyright in a work created on or after January 1, 1978, subsists from its creation and, except as provided by the following subsections, endures for a term consisting of the life of the author and 70 years after the author's death." And from Title 17, Section 101 "Definitions": "A work is ''created'' when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time; where a work is prepared over a period of time, the portion of it that has been fixed at any particular time constitutes the work as of that time, and where the work has been prepared in different versions, each version constitutes a separate work."

Will this apply to other countries? Say some Mexican steals our work and starts profiting from it, can we go after him and sue his ass?? Just wondering ;-)

Ok, Rad ... from THE BERNE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF LITERARY AND ARTISTIC WORKS (Paris Text 1971): Article 9, "(1) Authors of literary and artistic works protected by this Convention shall have the exclusive right of authorizing the reproduction of these works, in any manner or form." Article 16, "(1) Infringing copies of a work shall be liable to seizure in any country of the Union where the work enjoys legal protection. (2) The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall also apply to reproductions coming from a country where the work is not protected, or has ceased to be protected. (3) The seizure shall take place in accordance with the legislation of each country."

Cool, thanks rcook. ;-)

Attached Link: http://www.angelfire.com/pa3/marty/index.html

At the risk of getting flamed, I believe that the terms speak for theirselves. It's copyright infringement anyway you look at it. If the terms say you can't use it for commercial use then you can't use it for commercial use in any way shape or form! A good example of this is Disney. A day care center used their cartoon characters on their building and Disney sued, they won and to make a long story short the characters were taken off the building! I think that you should put yourself in the copyrighter's shoes. You work hard and slave labor over a graphic/model whatever and someone is making money off of your work and you're not seeing a dime! How would you feel then? Of course its alright if you the copyrighter gives your permission but can you at least see the point?