I have been a member since the late 90s altougth my profile says 2000 change of usp provider. I am an artist who has until about a year ago used poser for composition etc. I now use poser for more 3d renderered artwork. Ok thats where im from now to my question, quite rightly so the community scourned morvak and p2p. But what if you want to sell on old poser textures, models that you do not use. What you are thinking ah! but you can copy loads of models textures and sell them of telling any intersted parties that their copy is the only one. But you can do the same now with poser4 or 5 with rewritable drives (who here backs up on cd or dvd?) ah yes !? you can sell poser programs not Knowing wether the seller has backed up his copy, you take his word as a lawful person, so what about the second hand poser models and files that you dont use I dont want to be flammed that much and i know that it will take money out of the venders. so im not saying we should let it go on . But how do you all feel about members im one another with these type of arragements, and how many have lent others poser related stuff !!!!!!!!!!!!!! I AWAIT THE DISPLEASURE OF THE COMMUNITY AND MODS

Hi Cliss, I am not completely sure what your question is. Are you saying that you think this is happening and there's nothing we can do? Or are you asking if the community thinks it is okay to do this? (resell models) I will point out that Daz3D's EULA forbids passing an item from one person to another, even if it is deleted from the first owner's hard drive. They specifically state that their license is non-transferable. If you want to buy something for someone else from Daz, the only way to do that is via gift certificate. As far as Renderosity is concerned, anyone transferring Daz models in this way would be considered to be trading in Warez.

When you buy an item you only buy a license to use it, not to redistribute it freely or for profit. The creator is not selling you the item they created but rather a permission slip to use it. I believe many software companies operate in the same way. After all, just because I've bought Poser doesn't give me the right to reverse engineer it and sell it as 'Hawke's Posing Program'. Where secondhand software is concerned, unless you transfer the license of the software to your name after you buy it then you technically have no right to use it - whoever owns the original license owns the right to use that particular piece of software.

An interesting point - how did the software industry manage to create such a situation. Could you imagine the motor industry getting away with that one. 'We are not selling you the car, just letting you use it - when you have finished with it we get it back' (and yes I know about leasing but you do have the option to buy at the end of the lease). If I pay over $100 for an item - then trust me I think I have the right to recover some of that outlay when I am finished with the item. And I know that it is difficult to prove that someone has finished with a piece of software, but that is an issue for the software industry to resolve rather than try and con the public into 'paying to use'. Even the RIAA hasn't tried that one YET.

Well, I am sure you are commenting on giving away "old" models and textures you no longer need. But if the original seller is till selling them I believe it is not right to give them away. To me buying items is not a big issue if it is for business. Personally I can afford spending a few bucks here and there. But if I am a developer I sure as heck expect payment for my work. (This is no flame against cliss, I am just expressing my viewpoint too.)

If it's things that are no longer available, I dont see any reason why not, frankly, We had a thread at Planit3D where someone was looking for models that have been discontinued by DAZ and, because the rights to them have reverted to Zygote, there probably isn't much chance we'll see them offered again anywhere. So if I have it and no longer want/need it and someone else does, what harm is it doing? Whose income is it denying?

Here... let the Fame begin! How about Fair Use? If the material is no longer sold it can be redistributed for "educational and critical" purposes especially as there would be no "real injury" (the owner of the rights must show actual loss of revenue due to substitution of product in the market place). If the rights owner is realizing no ongoing profits form ongoing sales the would be in no position to claim actual damages. Now whether you could sell the material under Fair Use... I don't think so... charge "Shipping & Handling" fees for transfering the material? I imagine so. Now I am no lawyer, and I DO pay for my content (!) but I feel on principal that the rights to Fair Use must be seriously considered by artists and accademics as much as are rights of Intelectual Property... otherwise no collages, no pastiche, no historical referances in our work: severe limits on creativity. Likewise, where does critcism and journalism stand when intelectual property protection on behalf of the powers that be runs out of control? It was chilling when a journalist who obtained letters writen to people by a certain public historical figure could not publish them in a journalistic work because of copyright issues on the basis of the fact that his media was a single volume work rather than a daily tabloid. I am very troubled by the liscencing system... it is like Monsanto liscencing seed. However... This is not a lucrative buisness for anyone as I understand it, we are lucky anyone caters to us by providing, we certainly don't want to screw them over, especially given how honest they are, universally I find. And the bottomline, we must accept the terms we agree to. I have always been treated fairly and I have no complaints.

are not selling you the car, just letting you use it - when you have finished with it we get it back'

There's a difference. You can't make a copy of the car and keep it for yourself. There is only one car. AND, when you transfer that car to someone else, you transfer the title of ownership as well. You lose the use and ownership of the car. If you spent 6 months to a year creating something, then sold one copy and found out it was distributed to 500 others how would you feel?

Message edited on: 11/04/2004 10:04

If I drop dead tomorrow why can't I give all my Poser assets to someone else? Or my family sell them to someone else? Clearly there's no doubt that I'm not going to be using them anymore since I'm dead...lol

That's a whole different case! LOL

"How about Fair Use? If the material is no longer sold it can be redistributed.." We'll stop right there. Fair Use does not grant rights of redistribution. Note that fair use also only allows for excerpted use, not the entirety of a protected work, and that the educational purposes you are referring to deal (and have been adjudged as pertaining to) display, not transmission (which is redistribution). Fair use is not meant to allow educators free use of stuff. It is not meant to allow journalists free use. It is intended to allow inference, example, and legitimate display of a work to a specific purpose. No one can take the entirety of a novel and line by line crititque it and publish that. That is not fair use. Note that "real injury" is not required. Money does not have to change hands in order for the power of copyright to be diluted enough to make the rights worthless.

Just a note: in most states, inheritance is inclusive. Your heirs would recieve the same effective right as you to the license, since, for purposes of the court, they become you. This is most states, inclusive of Utah.

I think we all know what the right answer is to this one! Products bought from Renderosity expressly state within the accompanying licence that the product remains the property of it's creator and that what you are paying for as a purchaser is the right to download and use that product in your own artwork but not to sell that right on to someone else! Let's not forget that for the most part these products are only very cheap in the first place! LOL! I often buy products that I only use for just a single image and never use again - if I sold it on once I had used it, in theory the whole community could soon be provided with the product with only one original sale being made by the creator! This would be little different to the way P2P operates in the long run. As an additional point, I don't think most merchants are exactly rolling in cash made from their sales (I know I'm not LOL) and I certainly don't begrudge them the payments they are due.

Okay I need to clarify what I said - I was not refering to goods sold on renderosity, which are extremely low priced. I was refering to software sold a high price (for example MS Office) which operates under the same terms. And no I do not agree with the sale or distribution of copies of software no matter what the price. I am merely refering to the resale of the original software AFTER I am finished with it. I agree the car analogy was misleading, however the comparison to the record industry was not. If you bought a CD and the record company told you that you could not sell on that CD should you wish to you would be upset. The selling on of a product once no longer used and the redistribution through copying are two seperate issues and should be dealt with as such. The second is already illegal. Calling the first illegal has not provented the second from happening.

for educational purposes a whole work may be distributed for journalistic purposes a whole work may be reproduced for a claim to be succesfull some certain criteria must be met: 1. injury to reputation -the violation of copyright injuried the reputation of the copyright material resulting in actual damages measurabe as lost revenue. 2. confusion of product -the material were substaialy similar to the copyright material that consumers purchased them wrongly believing them to be the copyright material resulting in actual damages to the copyright holder measurable as lost revenue. 3. substitution of product -the material was substatially similar to the product such that it replaced the product in the market place resulting in actual damages due to quantifieble lost revenue. In the case of a discontinued product it would be difficult to established lost revenue in connection with a product the copyright holder is not actually selling... they would have to claim against some future potential market sales, dificult with obsolete products. Even with materials still on the market, in the case of an individual sale of a used, depriated unit sold without wartenty or product support, it would be difficult to establish that the purchasser would have purchased the full price version from the vendor and damages would be limited to that single unit cost and legal fees. This is all a logical argument not a moral argument. I am just frustrated with this obsession with Intelectual Property Rights when infact they are applied very differentially. Microsoft was able to "apropriate" the look and feel of the Windows OS with impunity but flattens everything in its way. Monsanto alows Roundup genetic material to corrupt fort years of tradional hybrid development on a farmers land and block his sale of crop and impound his harvest for backward enginering of what most be millions of dollars worth of his research and development. Purists would say I could not do a drawing of the Empire State Building without obtaining the rights although no one would mistake my painting for the building and no realestate deal would fall through because someone bought my painting in place of it. Most of my books give notice that they may not be placed in a library, on a bookshelf, or even in a pile in any organized mater, that I can not read any section aloud from the to my spouse without the writen consent of the publisher. Some of my British books give statement to the effect that although I have purchased them I have not acquired the right to read them, I imagine this applies to the copyright statement itself. I think if we agree to a EULA we should honor it... and we should buy our content... but to be honest... between disc crashes and anti-piracy I have had to get serial numbers for software I have legal purchased on occasion! The way to fight piracy is to price reasonably, produce excelent printed manuals, and give good customer support... LOYALTY LOYALTY LOYALTY! People pirate Photoshop a hundred times more than PaintShopPro I'm sure...

If you're talking about secondhand software, I've seen folks sell their old copies to (online and offline)secondhand retailers without any apparent legal trouble. The only things the law(in the US) bans on this subject as far as I know are some clear no-no's such as either buying one original copy of the software and making copies to sell or give away or buying a legitimate copy, making a copy, and returning or selling the original. In most cases, as long as you do not do either of those things, you don't have to worry about selling an old copy. Some companies will try to restrict what you can do with your software concerning redistribution so you might want to check the legal agreement carefully before you take action. Usually, what they want you to do regarding reselling the software will be clear.

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

"*for educational purposes a whole work may be distributed for journalistic purposes a whole work may be reproduced*"

Not correct, see attached link and read about "Fair Use".

From 4) at above link :
"... Fair use is usually a short excerpt and almost always attributed. ..."

Attached Link: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/

*for educational purposes a whole work may be distributed for journalistic purposes a whole work may be reproduced* Complete bovine excrement. Where do people get this nonsense, and why do they post it around the net as if it's the truth or in any way correct?! See attached link. Everything you could want to know about fair use, including academic use. bonni