I was up all night with this question, so now I put it to you to redeem or destroy my faith in the Poser Community as a whole. Things we all know: It is wrong to take someone else's textures and change a few pixels... add a tattoo... hue shift it... put your name on it and sell it. It is wrong to take someone else's .obj, delete some parts, add a few bows, put your name on it and sell it. It is wrong to take someone else's render and put it on your website without permission even if you give credit for it. It is wrong to identically copy someone else's idea for a texture pack such that you have to do a side by side comparision of where the buttons are to show that yours is different. It is wrong to identically copy someone else's idea for a clothing pack or character such that you have to do a side by side comparison of where the moles and dimples are to prove yours are different. These are things we all know, these are things we will publicly attack, berate, belittle, and generally anahilate people for doing to us and to fellow artists. Why then is Daz being publicly congratulated and thanked for http://www.daz3d.com/shop.php?op=itemdetails&item=2882&cat=5 I have seen numerous people complimenting the creator and thanking Daz for making available a pack that they clearly identify as being the 'Paine' pack. For those of you completely clueless as to who Paine is ... http://www.ffextreme.com/ffx-2/artwork/6.jpg http://www.ffextreme.com/ffx-2/artwork/7.jpg She is one of the 3 main characters from a Playstation 2 game called Final Fantasy X-2, by Square-Enix. I have contacted Daz and the person I talked to seemed unconcerned about the copyright violation, but I don't know if I find it more disturbing that they don't seem to care or that people are applauding them for doing it in the first place knowing not only the exact character it is supposed to be but knowing also that the character has a copyright associated with it. Why this effects me? I have a dream of someday doing character design for Square-Enix. Do poser users only protect the rights of poser users? When I attain my dream of working for Square-Enix doing exactly this sort of character design, will you all no longer protect my rights? Or the rights of the company that employes me? Will my rights no longer matter because I didn't make the character for you? Please consider these questions carefully and consider whether or not this package is actually honoring Square-Enix's investment in a fantastic artist's skill, or if it is using that artist's skill and Square-Enix's investment to put money in their pockets without offering any of it back to the original designer by getting it officially licensed. Please reaffirm my belief in the poser community standing up for 'ARTISTS' of any medium, not just its own. Do the right thing. Lady Littlefox

If it is a copyright violation which looks like it is, it will not be the first one DAZ is involved in. People at the DAZ forums really don't care about these things at all. All the can say is praise DAZ, praise all of the associates. Hardly anyone will speak out against DAZ in their forums. I had an issue with the new Mil Cats (not copyright violation related at all). Most people go wow at these animals while something is completely wrong with them. But most (almost everyone) people of there don't care. They are very gullible the only want stuff, all they do is buy and buy and buy some more and praise DAZ for the great content they create. Most customers at DAZ couldn't care less about the copyright violation, but at times DAZ does care. Get the original creator to contact them about this matter and see what will happen next. DAZ has recalled items before because of copyright violation. I'm still wondering how DAZ operates anyway. One day they seem very carefull about such issues and very customer caring and the next day it seems like they could care less about such issues and their customers.

I don't recall ever seeing anyone at DAZ calling it the "Paine pack", but I was quite surprised to see the similarities. If you look closely at some of the clothing texture packs, you'll see a Yuna-esque one too. It's possible, though perhaps unlikely, that no one at DAZ is familiar with Paine and is unaware of this potential violation. Let's wait until after the holiday weekend to see what happens. SnowS

I had to look at them side by side, but when you're right, you're right. I had considered buying the product but now I have my doubts. Worry sinks in at this point over all the other stuff I've bought, or got in freebie dls, over the years. I believe in artist rights, no matter what caliber, and I lecture my kids constantly about buying their music or videos and not ripping them.

Thank you for pointing this out, I greatly admire your work.

3DMark

Message edited on: 11/27/2004 10:54

Quite recently DAZ had to recall a vehicle, I think it was a tank, because of copyright violation. Also, just after they bought Bryce, they were using images by one of the guys at the Bryce forum for advertising. They eventually had to contact him, but I think they came to an amicable agreement. The way they operate at times can seem pretty precarious which is strange since they are always proclaiming how good they are as a company. I do hope this issue gets sorted out because I'd hate to believe that DAZ were purposely denying compensation to the original creator.

Why not contact Square-Enix and ask them to look into it? Then if they have a problem, their lawyers can deal with it. Or is it easier to try and whip up an anti-DAZ mob? Yeah the Warrior Class pack is almost exactly like the character you show. Only a few differences that I could see compareing images. But if creating a model that comes close to 'looking' like an established character is a copyright violation then the 'community' is in some deep deep doo-doo. Seriously, check out the Evil Dead Ash, Lara Croft, Matrix, Underworld and the other hundred 'look alike' items on sale here, at DAZ and all the other poser sites. Sure they aren't called by those names wink wink but we all know don't we? I honestly don't know the exact laws that cover likeness and design copyright. I know you can't copyright ideas but how close can something be before it a violation? Maybe Cooler knows... but even so if you're gonna whip up a mob to draw a line in the sand... make sure that your not standing on the side closest to the ocean cause you might get wet.

Whoa! I never knew that. I have Aiko, saw that outfit, thought it was cool and probably would have bought later. Not now, though. Thanks for the heads-up. I gotta be extra careful there now, having been burned by the Blackhawk & Hummer fiascos :-(

littlefox, Daz is concerned with copyright problems and if you have any doubts about a product use the contact us form http://www.daz3d.com/support/contact_form.php these are always read by the Daz staff. They do have someone who worries about the copyright end of things and I am sure that your concerns will reach the right person. I am not sure about the copyright on certain designs of clothing. (most of that outfit can be dated to the 1980 style of dressing) So I can't really comment on that issue. aeilkema...People at the DAZ forums really don't care about these things at all. All the can say is praise DAZ, praise all of the associate Umm actually you are wrong. There has been plenty of comments negative and otherwise about some products. We encourage people to speak about problems with the products (how else will they fix them?) but we always suggest people email tech support or the creator of the item. MilBigCat just got a face lift. btw. Littlefox I encourage you to use the contact us form, I will let the Staff and Forum team know of your thread. While I can't guarentee an answer for you, at least your concern was brought up to everyone. Thanks J.Greenlees Daz Forum Team

It's not the first case. Just to name a few : Swordswoman for She-Freak + Adventuress Sidekick for SP = Xena warrior pincess. Jungle Queen boat = African Queen boat. Celeste character and clothes = some recent film character whose name I forgot. The last one got me in trouble, because I didn't know the film it was taken from (something about a vampire or werewolf huntress) and made a pic with it, which was refused. I have no problem with DAZ making copyrighted characters, it's their choice. But I do object that they don't advertise it frankly.

Exhales.... I don't want to start up an anti-Daz Mob... that is not at all my intention. As you said, there are many other examples of this sort of thing running rampant all over the poser community... many other copyright protected characters being expoloited commercially... But where do we as an artist community draw a line on what is stealing from another artist and what is 'okay' because it isn't close enough? This isn't a Daz only problem. This is, I fear, a community problem that is getting out of hand, to the point that people will grab their torches and pitch forks at the merest mention of someone possibly stealing a texture from someone else and selling it..... or publishing a render or making a tube of a a render without the artist's permission... We afford our fellow artists rights and protect them zealously... even fanatically... But we turn a blind eye to a artist employed by a movie or gaming company's work? Is there artwork any less valid than ours because they have a sallery? Line I refer to is not for or against daz, the line I refer to is where is the line between right and wrong.... where does it become okay to ignore a copyright?

I don't think she's trying to whip up an anti-DAZ mob Moonbiter, she already contacted them personally and tried to get an answer. People might not like it, but going public is often the most efficient way to get things done. Honestly, I don't believe this is DAZ's fault; we're going to have to wait and see if the creator (Frances, I think?) makes a statement and then see what DAZ does SnowS

Message edited on: 11/27/2004 11:28

This is a really important issue, I think. Quite aside from the very valid moral/ethical issues at stake, it's very frustrating as a consumer to buy models which are later revealed to be copied from something in a movie or game. I don't do fan art!! Something worn by a character in a game is completely useless to me. Unfortunately, as I don't have my finger on the pulse of the game industry, I often have no idea what the inspiration for a particular product is. I rely on the integrity of the Poser vendor...sometimes to my detriment. I recently was enjoying an extremely popular film for the first time and saw...to my horror...a model I had bought a few months before, flitting merrily around on the screen. I now cannot possibly use that model, excellent though it is. (And I remember how excited I was when it came out, too. If only I had known!) I cannot claim to know the ins and outs of copyright law, but I agree with compiler that I would really like to know when something is a "lookalike". Thanks again, Lady Littlefox, for raising this whole issue. You are one of the most original artists making Poser models today, and they just keep getting better and better. I sincerely hope you achieve all of your dreams, though our community will be much the poorer on the day you leave us to follow a different road. :-) Kimberly

No pitchforks, we (or at least I do) believe that an undead army of blood-sucking lawyers work the internet spreading terror all their own, and that Daz, etc..., has an army of copywright wizards sleeplessly going over everything. :)

Mob probably wasn't the right term but Lady Little Fox has pointed out a serious issue in the community and from the way the original and the first reply was written it seemed to me that it was meant to attack only DAZ. I apologize to Lady Little Fox for the impression I gave by saying whiping up a mob. Without a doubt this is something that needs to be addressed within the whole community and after thinking about it, this probably falls more under intellectual property rights than true copyright. No one wants to be a party to violating a copyright and while I personally have no problems buying clothing, items and gear that are based off of movies, games or other 'copyrighted' materials if they are 'look alikes'; the question is just how close is to close? In most cases I think it would be something that has to be determined by the copyright holder. They are the ones who maybe damaged by a look alike. Tossing it out here before going to Square-Enix does more to hurt DAZ's rep and bottom line than it does to fix the issue. If Square had been notified and said 'Hey! You can't do that" and DAZ ignored them, then I could see going to the forums to make the community aware of the issue. But at this point we can only speculate if there truely is an violation of intellectual property or copyright.

There's a difference between copyright and trademark, and a lot of this sort of stuff can be OK under copyright law, but in breack of a trademark. It's become more complicated as extra bits have been added, such as "Registered Designs", but that's the basic element. You gallery image has copyright. People can't take it and put it elsewhere without your permission. But unless you'd gone through some extra procedures, they could say "That's a cool look, I'll copy it for Vicky", and stay legal. Depending on the source pf the stuff listed, trademarks could be involved. If they are, and the trademark holder discovers what DAZ is doing, they have to send a cease-&-desist letter. Trademarks are like that. Trademarks can also lapse. There's a regular renewal required, unlike copyright. And the original boat in the movie "The African Queen" might be commonplace enough that it couldn't be trademarked. As for the recently withdrawn models, a Blackhawk helicopter, an M1 tank, and a Hummvee, the Blackhawk has been restored. But what I have seen for myself, and comments in DAZ forums, suggest that the modeller made a poor job of the UV maps and texturing, and that was obvious enough that I am astonished DAZ didn't notice.

I recently was enjoying an extremely popular film for the first time and saw...to my horror...a model I had bought a few months before, flitting merrily around on the screen. I now cannot possibly use that model, excellent though it is. (And I remember how excited I was when it came out, too. If only I had known!) That's my concern too. If I buy something to use commercially, I want to know that I'm able to use the models and not worry that the cover I'm going to sell to a writer has got one of FF's main characters in it, just because I'm not familiar with the game. Not all of us use Poser as a hobbyist, some of us do sell our renders. There is a difference between "inspired by" and "copied exactly" This is surely more of an ethical matter than a legal one, but I thnk it needs to be addressed.

"As for the recently withdrawn models, a Blackhawk helicopter, an M1 tank, and a Hummvee, the Blackhawk has been restored. But what I have seen for myself, and comments in DAZ forums, suggest that the modeller made a poor job of the UV maps and texturing, and that was obvious enough that I am astonished DAZ didn't notice." erm no. Skondris stated they were being withdrawn for copyright reasons.

Well here's the core question I have... is the person in the 'right' if they do wrong but aren't caught? Or are they perpetuating a myth that is harmful to the community that because they didn't get caught, 'right' doesn't matter? It is a dangerous road to tred... do we as a community truly need lawyers to tell us when something is wrong or can we as a community tell the difference between right and wrong for ourselves and try to encourage people to stop doing the wrong even if they aren't getting caught.

It's quite confusing, indeed. But I've found some useful information here: http://www.starvingartistslaw.com Awhile back, somebody in the copyright forum asked about celebrity likeness and the law. Check out: http://www.ojr.org/ojr/law/1017956813.php

When you sell or broker to Daz, you're asked if anyone else has any right to your creation, that you own the design. Daz doesn't check that you do, or go through a copyright library to check. They take your word for it. When a copyright problem is discovered and reported, they investigate and take action. Other sites usually handle it the same way. They will immediatly reject something that is obvious copyright infringement, but often until someone points it out to them, theymay be unaware of the infringement. Daz has also become more of a brokering house and produces less original items in-house. Daz originals aren't done by Daz employees so much anymore, as a direct purchase from the creator. That means relying more and more on the honesty of the people who are selling to them. This can be dangerous, but in the long run it's more cost effective to buy a piece and put your name on it than to hire the artist to make pieces every week. It also gives more variation to your product line. Certain items, like the Jungle Queen, are modeled after items that have been used in a movie or game. However, the movie doesn't hold a copyright on the design of the item itself. The boat "African Queen" wasn't designed and built by the studio, it was purchased and used in the movie, that way a car would be. The copyright holder for the design would be the manufacturer of the boat, not the movie. Clothing items are even more nebulous. Two designers can come out with VERY alike dresses for the spring fashion season, but each is just a little different. While many clothing items look like the ones you'll see on the movies or runways, they aren't identical, and that gets around the copyright so long as you don't obviously point out the connection. A hero's costume in yellow, blue, and red may look a lot alike a Superman trademarked costume, but unless it's got the identifying "S", it passes under the wire. However, some things are too exact copies in design. Make a Mickey Mouse and change only the color of his eyes and call him Marty will still get you into trouble. Even the mock-superman costume will, it the owner of the original copyright believes that it's too close to their ownership. It's the option of the copyright holder on whether or not to make a stink. Many don't because of the trouble it would involve. If you see something like that happening, I'd report it first the brokering company, and if it stays and you think it shouldn't, tell the owner of the franchise itself. If nothing happens, then the franchise has decided that 1) it isn't worth the effort, or 2) it's not copyright violation. From an ethical point of view though, I don't like any kind of steal. The clothing/character is awfully close to the orginal. However, it's up to the copyright holder to do something about it. One nice thing about Daz though, when something like this does happen, and there is a copyright problem, the make amends. I purchased a texture here a few months back that was a steal of someone elses work and got stuck with no recompense. Gosh, I'm wordy today. Thanks LF for bringing up an important issue to us all.

Hummm, can't say that I agree. Just because a char in a game or movie has a similar item, does not mean it's automatically a copyright violation. Does that mean all of Jon Malis's char are violating copyright? Look at some of the chars sold at the different sites and then start watching old movies or looking in history books. That costume is close but is not an exact copy. If you want to get crazy how bout the van helsing looking items at rdna? I think the people at the game company should be notified and let them make the decision. Marque

IMHO, an outfit that detailed should be considered to be a work or art. Therefore, if one would like to make a poser/3D re-production of an item like for sale, the original creator should ALWAYS be contacted for a permission. Even if it wasn't exactly required by law, it would definitely be considerate and respectful. I had no idea about the connection, being unfamiliar with the FF games, but I came here to see this thread when Byrdie mentioned it at DAZ forums. But it is undeniable, that the outfits are nearly identical.

Here's an odd question. Suppose one got the Warrior Class clothing pack and put different textures on it? Would it then be a copyright issue? Does copyright or trademark give Square-Enix the ability to lock up an entire style of clothing such that nothing like it can be made? I can see where the design of the outfit in question resembles the outfit that Paine wears, and I can also see where they differ. I've also seen similar outfits in the punk rock styles of the 80's. I realize that the marketing of the outfit brings out the similarities more than the differences but there are differences. I just hate to think of entire strata of clothing becoming unusable because some character wore a very similar design. (This would really get cos-players out of joint. I've seen more that a few cos-play outfits of Paine that are almost spot-on despite being worn by males...) Still I suppose the best people to sort it all out are the lawyers.

Hm, if it turns out there's no problem with it legality-wise and somebody makes a male version, I'll buy. I very likely would have gotten it if it were for Mike or David. Heck, it'd even look good on the Freak.

Just a quick question? Before starting this thread, Did LF or anybody "confirm" that the creator of the item in question did not get permision? Or was all this a jump to conclusions type of thing? Personaly I like to try and belive in the integrity of the artists until it is proven to be wrong ( the whole inocent until proven guilty thing ya know).
Sorry, just my 2 cents.

That is a good point, C Hubert.

Oddly, the more I compare the two outfits, the more differences I spot. despite some comments in this thread they are not entirely identical. C_Hubert: I don't know if anyone asked the artist. I think a lot of people assume that a big company like Square-Enix would never give permission for even the slightest thing.

Well, in my opinion they are similar but have enough differences to not be considered a violation of copy right or trade mark.

Very good point. I think the original question tho' was "did they or didn't they?" Along with "what will/won't get you in trouble making/using game or movie look-a-likes?" That's what got me interested, as I do a lot of fan art for my personal enjoyment but some people who've bought my original character prints have asked about their favorite movie characters, too. I try to explain about copyright & trademarks, but as you know it can get pretty confusing.

Message edited on: 11/27/2004 14:05

There are some differences, but I think some of the similarities practically prove that Paine was used as the reference for this set. The large, slightly spiked cross on the lapel, the little skull belt buckle, and the fact that the red and black colored parts match those on Paine don't seem like things that could be accidentally be duplicated by basing it on 80's fashion. Even the sword is slightly curved at the end. I think I know what figure you're talking about Sparrowheart, and I was really surprised to see that for sale too. That's beyond similar, it borders on identical. Perhaps the only way we're going to eliminate this problem is for items based on a movie, game, or otherwise to only be distributed freely and state that they cannot be used commercially...but we all know how well rules like that go over. ;) Take care. SnowS

It is a good question darken666, but I think my answer atleast woud be if the textures were different there is a chance it wouldn't be an issue. The model is almost identical true but the color scheme makes it completely undeniable to anyone familiar with the character that it is intentionally trying to look as close as possible to the original... even down to the poses used in the promo shots being identical to some of of the art published by the company. At this point the package seems to be focusing not on the skill of the artist to produce something neat in the style of the 1980's rocker, but rather on the skill of the artist to nearly identically copy someone else's work.... And not reproducing it for the pure enjoyment of the series like fan-art and cosplay, but for pure profit. As to permission, this would be a matter of an 'officially licensed product' and they would have to list it as an officially licenced product on the product page and credit would have to be declaired. The page offers only the author and the 'Daz original' as the credits. Again... I reitterate the core question.... should this not be a matter of ethics over legality. Yes it is possible to make all these changes and make it legal, yes it is possible not get prosecuted because Square-enix may not find it worth the effort, yes it is possible to wholesale copy other people's stuff as long as they don't catch you and make you stop..... The question is, why is it a question in the first place to this community that values its rights as artists so highly? Should it really come down to a 'well if I make the buttons red I'm not copying' or should you ethically not even make it a question by not /trying/ to copy up to a point in the first place. There is such a thing as doing something inspired by.... I don't claim to be able to explain this nor do I even think I want to, but as fellow artists, I simply want to appeal to your sense of fairness and mutual respect. If I have caused you to think with this question than I have achieved my only goal... Is there a double standard on whose copyrights we respect and whose we totally ignore based on who uses poser and who doesn't? Is it the responsiblity of those monitoring us to make us do right, or is it our own responsiblity not to do wrong? Is it a world that you want to live in where you have to force people to do the right thing? I leave you with these thoughts because the questions and answers are becoming repetative and there are no easy answers.... there is a problem... I have brought it to your attention... I can't deal with it by myself, no one person can..... if the community feels ethics should be universal than it must be up to the community as a whole, not one person raising their voice. And with those thoughts I leave this thread... What will be, will be... I have had my say. Littlefox

I'm not all that famulair with some gaming/movie characters, what happens if I do a commerical image, and a copyright problem rears its head, because the charactor/model/clothing was, (unknown to me), was copyrighted, and I'm sued?

My question isn't about right or wrong, but about legality. If I were to buy that item at DAZ, and do an animated short with it, and that short got me sued by Square-Enix for violating their registered trademarks or infringing on their IP, would DAZ back me up in court? Because, if that ever happened, there's a good chance my career as an artist and animator would be ruined.

I would be hard pressed to have any opinion on the legal basis of all this, and on the differences between copyright and trade mark. But, as a customer, I expect someone who sells an outfit who looks like a well known outfit to tell me about this lookalikeness before I purchase the item. (and it's not just DAZ, BTW). For instance, I had no idea that this outfit for Aiko was a lookalike from a game. I learned this from this thread. I decided to buy it anyway, but now I know that I must not use these clohting items just as they are, or else I run the risk of producing a lookalike. With this information, I could make an informed decision, which is the basis of commercial relationships (or at least, it should be...). I would have appreciated to see this information in the promo page.

Can the style and cut of an outfit be copyrighted? Thats the question in my mind. I mean, yes - the two outfits are very very similar. But that doesnt mean that anyones copyright has necessarily been violated. I draw ideas from things I see around me all the time - magazines, shop windows, people on the street. We all do, dont we? The person who did the 3D model still had to tediously create each piece himself, texture it, and test it. That sounds like a lot of hard work. The concept of the outfit was the easy part IMO. Now, if Daz had taken someone elses model and changed it slightly, or had taken someone elses textures and modified them - that would be an obvious violation. But the cut and style of clothing is a much more nebulous area, and to be honest I hope we never get so picky that we cant draw inspiration from the outfits we see around us. Otherwise, we all have to become fashion designers in addition to modelers, texturers, renderers, and artists in our own right. Not to be contrary at all - just my thoughts. Best Blessings, --Invidia

My thoughts, exactly Phily. I don't game, so I know squat-all about the characters/sets/props used in them. More familiar with movies, I know of one particular model that's on my Daz wishlist that, when I do get around to buying it, will never be used for anything but fan art for those very reasons. Because it's too close to a certain copyright/trademarked film critter to be taken as anything else. I think you all know which one I mean, it's from an extremely popular book & movie series.

"The concept of the outfit was the easy part IMO." Character concept is an art in itself, and many people are hard working on making a character look just right. It's just as hard as making the 3D mesh, texture, etc... IMO.

Byrdie, if you're refering to that little blue thing, I think some of the morphs and textures give it a life beyond just fan art. :) And Lady LittleFox, I understand your concerns. I wish they'd done with this set what was done with the Lynx outfit, provided a bunch of different textures and reserved the Yuna-like set for one of the pop-ups rather than a main image. Seriously with little effort the Warror Class outfit would be perfect for a punk/raver/whatever. I think the flaw is not in the outfit or it's design, but in the marketing of it.

ok so here's a question for you. And don't take this as a mod talking ok? If the set was marketed in pieces. say shirt and shoes.. leggings and skirt.. would it be any different? Say, i bought the pieces or put it together to look like Paine. (yep i have played final fantasy too btw) is there any difference? Is it the way it's put together or marketed that's the problem? (asking only for my own curiousity)

Yep, it's the little blue fella. If it weren't for the extra morphs & textures you mentioned, I probably wouldn't buy him at all. That'd be too expensive for something with very limited use.

Is it the way it's put together or marketed that's the problem? I'd say both. By putting the pieces together, the odds of someone using them as a set are much greater. If that puts someone at risk for infringing on Square's IP, then it's the responsibility of the content provider to make that known. It's not a copyright violation to sell the oufit I don't think. The big problem is when someone uses the items commercially and Square says, "we didn't give permission to use Paine in a commercial/advert."

get over it the fact of the matter is that it DOESNT count as a copyright infringement. this thing has been goeing on for many many years from callogne to food someone can take chanel #5 duplicate its exact scent but not with the same recipir and sell it with no problem as long as they dont call it by the same name so all they have to do is call it Channel #6 someone can take the butterfinger bar and do the same and call it Peanutbutter Fingers so no it is not a copy right infringement and many many people have been doing it in the poser community for years also relax cool off and get over it

ohh let me clarify what i just said. I'm asking only because we often mix and match clothing to get the look we want. Sooo what I am asking I guess is if it had been just a shirt and skirt and leggings and belt and all that even if it resembled the paine outfit once you put it ALL together is that still a problem? Not making excuses or anything just curious because i have done a lot of characters clothing mixing and matching pieces to get the right look and come up with something that came from a video game. So curious about your thoughts? And just a thought here, while we discuss things none of us are copyright lawyers so none of us really know what's legal or not. I think we are discussing ethics here, rather than law.

"Character concept is an art in itself, and many people are hard working on making a character look just right. It's just as hard as making the 3D mesh, texture, etc... IMO." I didnt mention character concept at all. Im talking about outfits - tops, skirts, leggings, boots, etc. And yes, no doubt quite a lot of work goes into that. I didnt say it was easy (though some outfits are certainly easier than others), I said I thought it was the easiest part of the process. That is still my opinion. I have a friend who is an editor, and as such she hears a lot of people who have these wonderful ideas for books and screenplays. The people always swear her to secrecy because they dont want their idea stolen. This makes her laugh because, as they say in the business, "the plot is the cheapest part of the book." Yes, original ideas take time and creativity, but they are a far cry from the actualization of a movie/book/3D model. Which is why I brought up the question in the first place: Can the concept for an outfit be copyrighted? I dont think the answer is yes, though characters can be trademarked so particular outfits probably can be as well. Best Blessings, --Invidia

Stormrage, check my message above yours for my thoughts on the matter. Another alternative way to market it would be what JHoagland has done with his TruckR package. It's in the style of a certain transforming semi-truck from a popular cartoon of the 1980s. However the texture set and addons to make it look almost identical are available separately as a freebie. If legal action were taken it would simply be a matter of pulling the freebie rather than scrapping the whole set.

"It's not a copyright violation to sell the oufit I don't think. The big problem is when someone uses the items commercially and Square says, "we didn't give permission to use Paine in a commercial/advert." " hmm this brings a thought to mind.. What makes Paine Paine? What makes her a character? Just her clothing or the whole look from her hair on down? I can put together a paine outfit in real life.. but I guarentee I am not her. Would people mistake me for Paine? do the clothes make a character? or does the overall look? Asking because I am into character creations ;)

It'd be great if cooler could say something in this thread about the issue, but you guys caught him on a big holiday (Thanksgiving). However, I wouldn't be surprised if somebody told them to avoid saying anything (which could make things worse). My own humble opinion is that they should pull the item and shut down any threads (which could also make things worse) the minute they get back to work next week. Then go back to the original game plan they had, back in the 90s or whenever, where they work with their strengths, which are the modelling and selling of original characters. If the peanut gallery complains that they aren't doing other people's commercial characters, so much the better. There are still plenty of ripoff sites that are willing to play to the lowest common denominator, allowing Daz to stick to the high road.

@Stormrage : I think it is a whole set of circumstances. Marketting the Adventuress Sidekick would not have brought to my mind the images of Xena, but marketting this outfit and character at the very same time that "Swordswoman for She-Freak" was marketted clearly made the point. The clothes from Celeste character look very much many other clothes in the same vein. But marketting her with the very same rooftop that the original film character stands on in the film really makes the point. As for Aiko, the outfit would have passed unnoticed if it had not been a part of a package specifically designed to recreate the anime look. I don't know about copyrights involved in the African Queen boat. But I guess there is still some unsure area, or else the mesh would have been named "African Queen" instead of "Jungle Queen". To me, it is more a marketting problem : I can handle the copyright risks in my works IF (and only if) I'm informed about a potential problem. To push the matter, I'm becoming unsure about my libraries : how many items have I bought unknowingly that can get me into trouble ? It has happened to me once. How can I know that it won't happen again ?

Another question on this topic : Since the author knows that he has drawn inspiration from a film/game character, and since most people who have posted seem to think that it's not really a copyright problem, then what would be the risk for the author to clearly advertise his inspiration ?

Gaaaa... Now I have a headache

Maybe because some people, especially certain IP owners & their lawers, automatically translate "inspired by" to "ripped off from"? And if you think I'm joking or being sarcastic, consider Anne McCaffrey and the matter of folks who draw dragons. Any and all dragons, not just those Pernese critters.