First, I have no complaint about the new Thunderbird 3 model available in the Free Stuff. I'm sure it's an excellent model and the artist did a good job on it.

My complaint is two-fold:

1. Why is this item even allowed in the Free Stuff section? I thought all objects from TV shows or movies were "copyright violations". Did the free-stuff tester not know "Thunderbirds" (and this distinctive ship) were copyrighted?

Personally, I believe that if you are going to have a copyright policy in place, then you need to have someone who will check items for copyright violations... even if it means taking longer to approve the items. Every time something "slips through", the enforcement of the copyright policy is further eroded.

1. My bigger complaint is actually about Renderosity's selective enforcement of their copyright policy. ALL of my Thunderbird models (and Star Wars and Doctor Who and other models) were removed for copyright violations, yet this new Thunderbird 3 model is allowed? (Not to mention the other copyrighted models still available in the Free Stuff section, such as the "Aqua Teen Hunger Force" figures.)

What is the criteria for getting a copyrighted object to pass through the Free Stuff section? What did the other artist do to get his Thunderbird model passed when mine was deleted by an admin?

--John

don't forget the Liberator (Blakes 7 (BBC))

Just noticed the notes say for commercial or non-commercial use. I thought only non-commercial is allowed, providing one has permission. Also, is the Cruiser 100 by the same artist film-inspired? I hope not but if it's from a game/movie -- I don't recognize it, hence the question -- I'll only use it for fan art.

I don't see this item anywhere; maybe they deleted it.

Right here: http://www.renderosity.com/freestuff.ez?Topsectionid=0&WhatsNew=Yes Items 5 and 6

Message edited on: 12/23/2004 13:27

Thank you for bringing this to our attention, we will deal with this right away.

you will deal with this right away. since each addition to the Freestuff has to be approved by a member of Staff and it's been weeks since this new enforcement started... ..what went wrong?

Apologies to Thunderbirds fans but isn't it a bit unrealistic to expect that whoever does the checking is going to be familiar with every anime, movie, TV series cartoon and JapaniPuppetMation that's ever been produced? Unless the item is tagged "Inspired by the Hit Series," or something similar, the only way to catch some things is going to be for people to point them out. No need to necessarily assume sinister backroom deals or favoritism, tempting though it may be.

WWW.Google.Com does a good job at checking.. others are simple. Thunderbirds. there was a movie out this year... Doctor Who? Worlds longest running SF Show. etc etc etc.. easier to check than you think....

"Thunderbirds. there was a movie out this year" News to me dude :-) I agree Google should probably be part of the checker SOP though, the poor devils.

Pretty soon their will be nothing to make. Because everything has a copyright. But what can I say.

Never heard of the Thunderbirds....~sigh~ and I'm 44 o.O...maybe I should watch more TV than playing on the puter LOL.... I remember Gumby & Pokey :)

lmao!! "Gumby and Pokey"...Good show. Watched when I was a child.

Probably need to specify that all checkers need to be Gex-X or below. I could spot Howdy Doody knock-offs maybe. And I do recognize Hello Kitty, who for some reason I find irresistible.

I'd hire Hoagland and myself to be the watchdogs... very little if anything would ever slip past us. Besides, I think I still hold the record for making the most "comic book" violating poser figures freely available. It'd be like community service.

"..what went wrong?" Nothing went wrong. It is the responsibility of the person who uploads the stuff be be certain, NOT renderosity. Says so, too. So stop trying to pin something on them when the error lies in the person uploading. "Pretty soon their will be nothing to make. Because everything has a copyright. But what can I say." Rather disheartened sentiment, don't you think? New stuff is made everyday. originality lies in both the individual numbers and the sum of the whole. Look around you and be inspired. Aspire to think beyond the ken of others, and you will be dazzled by all that is left to be shown. I think it was a good thing that someone who was familiar with these characters brought it to the attention of the staff -- someone obviously did not fully understand the terms of use. I'm not certain the manner was the best, but, well, I understand the bad feelings that inspired the methodology.

Ynsaen yes something did go wrong. open your eyes. a few weeks ago there was a protest when stuff was removed and we were told a rule was being enforced at last. now, the filter that is supposed to stop anyone that does not read / follow the rules fails. rant elsewhere, for here you are wrong.

A few weeks ago there was a protest when people who have blitherly ignored what has been there as long as I can remember got pissed that it was being enforced finally. It does not change the fact that the people who uploaded in the first place still did so in violaton of the TOS. There is no filter, sir; Not mechanical, nor human, never has been, on Renderosity, for filtering this sort of content. To imply that one did exist is foolish, absurd, and blind to the methodology by which this business functions. The only thing stopping people from doig so is themselves. That's it. Renderosity is under no onus to, in and of themselves, police the stuff. The onus is directly and specifically on the members themselves. It is specifically spelled out for you, as well. So no, sir, I am not wrong. You are. You are wrong for expecting renderosity to put in place a system that forces us to do upload only non infringing material. That is not their role. That is not their responsibility. It is ours. As individual members of this site. And it says so, in the TOS. The penalty for such could be anything, as well. part of our role as members here is, ultimately, to help them by spotting things they might miss. When they vett the freestuff, it is not incumbent on them that they be familiar with every format possible, nor that they go off and do a serach that the maker of the object should already have done before they uploaded it in the first place. They generally operate, indeed, under the assumption that we do follow the rules. And that may mean, indeed, that sometiems we need to step up and speak out about stuff that was missed -- such as the honorable Mr. Hoagland has done here, and has you have done before as well. What you are asking, note, is that they switch policies and methods of operation to one that essentially begins with the assumption that we do not follow the rules. Which would truly be a bad thing, insofar as I am concerned. That would take this place back a bit ago, where that was the modus operandi of some of the (now gone) staff here. And that was a most unpleasant place more often than not.

Umm...their is talks UBIsoft (Game Company) could be sued for making a Sim, using their McDonnell Douglas aircrafts. I do not know....if I made something and copyright it. I couldn't care less if people made it in Poser or other, as long as they didn't sell it. You live once..enjoy it.

Message edited on: 12/23/2004 20:19

" Effective April 7th, 2003: All uploads will be held for review to ensure accordance with the guidelines listed above. Once the item is approved it will be made available to all Renderosity members for download." says it all don't it? part of those giudelines is, no copyrighted or trademarked items. simple logic follows : the items are reviewed before being placed into freestuff. ergo : this a filter items that slip past said guidelines : eg copyrighted / trademarked items are a failure of the system to prevent said items from being placed into freestuff. conclusion : the system failed. QED now, if thats not a filter... why review items before posting them in freestuff? why waste the time? you are not being logical. I asked a question, to which you are not considering the facts at hand. it easy to do a quick check using Google. the items in question are easy to find there. thunderbirds, the Liberator, Blood Rayne, all have been passed in the last week. as a test I did searches with the following results : Thunderbirds : 7 Hits in the first 10, the first being the Offical Thunderbirds Site Liberator : 9 Hits. etc see how easy that is?

OK, let's look at what you so elegantly failed to include. "The Free Stuff section is where members can post links to free stuff that they would like to share. If you have an item that you would like to make available to others, upload your file and thumbnail to your personal website, and post the link to them here. If you don't have your own website where you can upload files, there are dozens of free sites at Geocities, Angel Fire, etc. If you must link to a web page due to the nature of your ISP/hosting service, the FREE content MUST appear on the same page that is being linked to in the Free Stuff gallery entry. The links MUST BE TO FREE ITEMS. Any links found to non-free content will be immediately deleted. Freebies that require a free sign up at another site are welcome within Renderositys FreeStuff, we do require that it says in the "Notes and Requirements" box that Free membership is required. By providing a link to a Free Stuff item, you are representing that you are the sole owner of the intellectual property being offered. You agree to indemnify Bondware Inc. in any dispute which may arise regarding products that you offer through this site. We reserve the right to delete links to content and websites that we deem unsuitable for this community and its Terms of Service." now, the specific things being reviewed -- to which that specific phrase applies -- exactly, as I happen to recall the very day that it went into effect and the many bovine excrement posts that went with it which explained said statments purpose and intent quite clearly -- are as follows: 1 - that the file is there. 2 - that the free content is on the page being linked to 3 - that they are free 4 - that if sign up is required it is listed int eh notes and requirements box That's it, sir. You can read more into it in the interest of carrying forward a debate, but that eally is the only things they actually look for. but wait! there's more! "By providing a link to a Free Stuff item, you are representing that you are the sole owner of the intellectual property being offered. You agree to indemnify Bondware Inc. in any dispute which may arise regarding products that you offer through this site. We reserve the right to delete links to content and websites that we deem unsuitable for this community and its Terms of Service." let's see -- the first part of this is not something they need to check because you say you are the sole owner. What, we aren't liars by nature are we? I mean, heck, it's direct and right there. And then, of course, it says we reserve the right. That does not mean they must, or that they do, but merely that they can, at a time of their choosing and for reasons known only to them, opt to remove stuff. It does NOT require them to do so. Quoting something out of context is bad form, Khai. For shame! I've come to expect much, much better from you. Dang nabbit! As to why review them? Well, lest you be unaware of it, those particular items were issues that were rahter rampant in freestuff quite some time ago. There were lots of less scrupulous (and not very successful) merchants who were putting freestuff links up to stuff in stores (pay for), there were a great many complaints about the sites requiring registration not bothering to mention that fact. And, to be fully fair, I agree -- a google search is fairly simple, rather quick. It is also not efficient nor effective. A google search does not return results for trademark registrations. That ship may very well be a recognizable item, distinctive in and of itself, but google will not tell you if it is a trademarked item -- which is the only issue that would stop the creator of the item in question from being able to upload it. Copyright would not -- copyright is much too limited in scope to do so. So the only effective seraches would be through the various governmental trademark sources -- and also the only ones that "count", so to speak. Which is not always easy and is not always simple. Incidientally, the Blood Rayne set supplied renderosity with a letter stating permission was given by the owner of rights. So yes, sir, I am considering the question and the facts that are at hand, and also the full set of pertinent and applicable considerations that go into the entirety of the nightmare. If they were to check every incoming item, for one, they would have to hire someone to do so, as checking and sestablishing trademark and patent, all by itself, is a full time job. A single search can take anywhere from 5 mintues to ten days depending on the length and breadth of the subject at hand and the level to which something needs to be done. and if you want a full graphical representation (which would be needed in most cases here) from the USPTO, well, then you need to have access to one of two other tools that are NOT readily available to the public, are subscription based, and would ultimately require this site to either lower the merchant cut or increase prices across the board (and, well, come on, Khai, you're a merchant too -- odds are it would be both). And that's all assuming the item is a known element. Searching for unknown ones would be even more time consuming and involved, and would effectively kill the availablity of freestuff here. So, please forgive me if it insults, but, well, its asinine to ask for such without fully considering the entirety of the situation and the need thereby.

but the key phrase is: " Effective April 7th, 2003: All uploads will be held for review to ensure accordance with the guidelines listed above. Once the item is approved it will be made available to all Renderosity members for download." so, the team just like to hold up items? they don't check them? asine is repeating a postion when you are wrong. I read english. I read the above. I see what it means. it means : we check items, if they break out terms stated above, we won't link to them now. yes or no answer does that make sense? remember Yes or No.

he can always upload it and name it something else, like TBSpace Ship :)

You may read it, but you aren't understanding it.

In answer to your questions, as phrased, with dissections in parentheses:

so, the team just like to hold up items?

No. (team? What team? There is one person regularly checking them. One. For free. In her spare time. Get real, will ya?)

they don't check them?

No. (They do check them. No is the correct answer given the construction of your question. They check them for the four things I noted in my earlier post -- the four things to which your excerpt is pointing when you read the entirety of the statement and take the context as supplied -- which you are failing to do)

does that make sense?

Yes. (assuming the unspecified context of your question is we check items, if they break out terms stated above, we won't link to them, that is. As to why, because they are only checking the items for the 4 elements I pointed out)

Now, your turn:

Are you obstinantly refusing to take the entirety of the statement as a whole?

remember: yes or no...

Message edited on: 12/23/2004 21:16

"he can always upload it and name it something else, like TBSpace Ship :)" Well, technically, he certainly can. However, in regards to the potential for trademark issues, indeed, he may be able to. I don't know -- I don't have the appropriate resources to discern that fact for certain readily available to me at this point.

So I can`t post my free disney characters here? :)

I have been in contact with the PTB and the problem with the T3 model was the fact that I had put the name in the thumbnail. And the fact that Thunderbirds is a trade mark Since I didn't for the Blakes 7 model (and Liberator isn't a trademark) there wasn't a problem. They also asked that I remove the option for commerical use. I won't post the email I got from the PTB, but they seem happy that people post fan models, as long as they don't say they are fan models. If you've had a fan based model removed even though you didn't list a trademark, I think it may be worth contacting the PTB's, since as was mentioned, that does seem to be a selective enforcement. The other ships, Cruiser 100 for example was just me mucking around with Wings and although has influences from probably hours misspent watching sci-fi, I don't think it's a direct copy of anything in particular. I meant no offence with any of the postings. I'm learning Wings, came up with models that I wanted to share, but didn't want to or think of charging for and since I've seen so many other fan based models out there, I assumed it was OK to post. Sorry to have upset any of you in these times of goodwill. Merry Christmas all.

I've been through and removed everything from my freestuff that I considered could be copyright. Again, sorry if I put any noses out of joint, that was so far from my intention that it's not funny.

Am I the only person here who finds all this informing against members a little unpleasant? It's becoming like a totalitarian state.

Going to the forums is also not the appropriate course of action, which I wish the moderators would remind people of when they do so. The proper course of action is to alert the copyright/trademark holder and bow out, allowing them to pursue it in the manner and to the extent they feel appropriate. As a courtesy to the site we spend so much time on, you can contact a moderator or admin privately so that they can remove the item if they feel it poses a risk. However, it should not be brought to the forum to tattle to the whole world; in fact, doing so may be libelous in some cases.

(In all fairness, this particular thread is not for the purpose of alerting about a possibly policy violation; as the subject line says, it's protesting what seems to be selective enforcement of the policy.)

I don't often check the Poser Forum, so the fact that I had broken the TOS would have come to my attention much quicker had I received an IM. But, as far as my models are concerned, the matter is closed. As for selective enforcement, that seems to still be an issue. I feel I need to defend my moderator. He's gone through a lot the past month and the Renderosity backlog isn't something I would wish on anyone. So the fact that something slipped through shouldn't be held against him.

Again, sorry if I put any noses out of joint, that was so far from my intention that it's not funny. First, I want to apologize to anyone who uploaded items (especially drawbridgep)- the models are good and I don't want to discourage anyone from making models of their favorite TV shows or movies. And it wasn't my intention to "inform" against anyone, but I had to use this as an example of "why is his allowed when mine was deleted". I'm sorry if it's a tough job to track down every item for possible copyright infringement, but I really think that it needs to be done. Otherwise, two things will happen: 1) People will see new items uploaded and wonder why the copyright policy isn't being enforced. 2) People (like me) will complain every time we see a new Thunderbirds models and wonder why the policy is being selectively-enforced... again, "mine was deleted, why is this allowed"? And the idea that the Free Stuff mod not knowing about Thunderbirds is a poor excuse- karen1573 knew enough to delete my Thunderbirds items. Or was the other item checked by a different Free Stuff mod since it was in Bryce format? Does that mean that the Copyright Policy is applied differently in each Free Stuff Section? Could I convert my Thunderbirds models to Vue and then upload them? This also opens up the site to another issue: people uploading obscure things just to see if they can. I wonder if the Free Stuff mods have heard about "Star Blazers"? Maybe I can upload an Argo model and they won't delete it because they can't find the copyright holder. --John

I can understand now, why one persons was deleted (Removed), when their are others as well that isn't.

Apology accepted. Although I relised you weren't point the finger specifically at me and was using it as a point. Each mod does look after the free stuff in their area. So it is tricky to get a level playing field. Agent Smith is the mod of the Bryce forum and it did slip through both mine (I have read the TOS and should have remembered) and his fingers. It was just an honest mistake. I know he's been through a lot this past month and is trying to catch up. Although I am allowed to pos the models under obscure names (T-class rocket) or whatever. I've decided not to. THe models are still available but not through R'osity, only through my website (and even then, I haven't put a direct link yet). The point about obscure models is a very valid one. Not just for fan based stuff, but for stealing and posting other peoples models as your own. There's just no way the mods can catch everything. They are, despite rumours, only human.

Saying "it needs to be done" is different from it CAN be done. Can the process be improved? Sure, most things can be improved. Will it be come perfect? Of course not, nothing in life ever does. The process can't be automated. Fallible human beings have to do it. As you say, some jokers may try to post the most obscure things they can to test the system and then crow when it fails. They have to strike a balance between exercising due diligence in ferreting out violations and spending an inordinate amount of time making exhaustive searches that will slow down the flow of items made available. To a great extent, they have to rely on the honesty of the folks making submissions, just as they do with every other term of the TOS, that and observant people pointing out the ones they miss. For the latter, I think a simple private message would be the most expeditious method. Public exposes are OK I suppose if they make one feel better. To the extent that they lead to improvements in the system, they can be even be a good thing but eventually, I think they tend to foster a climate of conspiracy theorizing where no conspiracy exists. One gets pulled and the other doesn't because people with the best efforts and the best of intentions screw up on occasion. Homeland Security nominees turn out to be duds, suicide bombers infiltrate mess tents, it happens to everyone and will continue to happen. That's just they way things are.

Also, the problem is not with renderosity. It is the responsibility of the member to NOT upload such things. If the member uploading knows it is a trademarked item, then they shouldn't be uploading it. That's what the policy states. It's not our site. Enforcement can be selective. They do NOT have to be fair, considerate, or even compassionate. If they wanted to, they could simply outright ban people who do such. They don't. That says a lot right there. Trying to push that responsibility off on someone else may seem right, but it is not.

It seems a bit strange to me. Renderosity and daz are about the only sites that bother about the copyright thing. I can see how daz dont want trouble selling stuff but free items are different. Another thing, how does making 3d objects of star trek etc affect paramount and the other companies, unless they are planning on making their own 3d versions of stuff? The bigger companies should be more relaxed about people making 3d versions of their things. The star wars stuff is a good example, hundreds of star wars items can be downloaded from thenet and even at starwars.com they allow and encourage fan films, it hasnt done them any harm. It can be good publicity for a company to allow fan films and 3d objects and it can be very bad publicity if they dont.

ah, but there is no such thing as bad publicity...

Just think of how much money the studios/other PTB could make selling 3d versions of their stuff for fan usage. Maybe they don't realize there's a market out there; heck, we buy the books, games, DVDs, toys & other tie-ins, of course we'd buy Poser models if they licensed them. Even with the restrictions I'm sure they all would have. That way we fan artists would be happy and the copyright/trademark owners' rights would be respected too.

hush! I've got too many letters out already for license permission! You'll wreck my chances!!! gol darn it!

Oops! ::mind-whammys any TPTB-marketing snoops into forgetting I said that:: Which ones? Wizards & "Space-Knights" I hope ;-) ::crosses fingers::

There is bad publicity, I wouldnt buy any disney films because of there attitude, I dont like star trek so I wouldnt buy that stuff anyway. It would be good if the companies made 3d versions of their stuff if they scanned the real versions to do it, the star wars spaceships for example. Another thing, you dont see many places where people say "disney is such a nice company".

Disney knows that most buying/viewing decisions are made based more on what the kids want than their parent's views on copyright policies. Kids would still want to see the latest Disney flick if you told them Michael Eisner ate puppies for breakfast. They're far more worried about some moralistic boycott by the religious right. Even so, I don't know that they've put any more clothes on the Little Mermaid and Princess Jasmine despite complaints by some that they're too scantily clad. For every time that boards and CEOs listen to the PR department, they're probably a hundred where they listen to the lawyers and accountants. Fear of some potential loss trumps intangible promises of customer goodwill. I imagine they're afraid that if they loosen their hold on their precious property even the teeniest bit dire consequences will follow. I'm not a copyright lawyer so I don't know how true that may be but they obviously seem to believe it. Lucas may choose to adopt one policy, Disney and Paramount have different lawyers and accountants and as long as the law is on their side, they choose to do it differently

hurriedly adds Bakshi to list of letters still to write remembers his grumpiness from a meeting in 86 Decides to look up the trademarks rights on bakshi's film....

This lord of the rings copyright stuff, why not just make up your own ogres and monsters etc so you dont have to bother about copyrights? Anyway lord of the rings is very similar to wagners ring of the niebelung it has an all powerful ring and invisibility with a helmet, so tolkien didnt copy all the details into lord of the rings. :)