never seen it before, but then again i haven't checked the galleries here at r'osity in months. interesting idea though :)

lol - here's what I got from google on a search of 'skull cocktail stick' (copy/paste into the address bar) http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/Owlpellets_tcm5-48807.pdf http://www.sequentialtart.com/archive/may00/uti_0500.shtml

There are no restrictions on ideas and thought processes only on intellectual works and productions. But if you conscientiously and deliberately copy someone elses work then you are infringing on copyright laws. So you either know or you dont if you are copying something. So I wouldnt worry if you think youre probably using an idea that might have been used in many variationshow many Bryce sphere images have you seen or Poser Vickies and Michaels? I havent seen many scull head shaped martini olives.

Attached Link: http://www.benedict.com/Audio/harrison/harrison.aspx

I say use it. No two people will ever come up with the same image even if they both do have the same idea for said image.

Given enough time, a monkey will write a shakesperian play on a typewriter........anon

Quest, I have a question, if Mike and I create a model, that is, say unique, and someone else creates the same model with a very few alterations, would you say that is infringing on our copyrights? I am asking cause I am not sure, but it is happening now and has been happening for about a year and a half. Thanks for the help....Sharen

More info, this person has a lot of our models....alot!

Sorry, the internet is proof that we don't have enough monkeys and typewriters to produce shakesperian plays.

Judging by a lot of the movies I've seen lately, monkeys with typewriters are turning out a lot of screenplays. :^)

SAMS3D, IMO the person is getting your models and doing mods to them then claiming them to be theirs. legally you can not do anything about that because you don't state it anywhere that a person who gets your models can not do any mods to them.

PS: Anyone doing such a low down thing imo should be put up against the wall and shot.

Something else i would like to say and i hope the person that is taking these models and claiming them to be theirs reads this.
It's people like you that will stop others from putting in the hours to make models and give them out free or for sale on the market. If this ever happens and you can't get the model you need one day just sit back and thank yourself for it.
I for one can't make models and i'm am so greatfil for people like Sharon and the many others that can and do for ones like me.
If it comes to a day where i can't get a model for a WIP i'm doing i'll curse the day you were born, that my friend is a promise.

Message edited on: 01/02/2005 09:47

Message edited on: 01/02/2005 09:49

That's sad Sharen, I'm so sorry to hear that all your hard work is being abused in this manner.
Maybe you should make things clearer, on this issue, in your ReadMe's, 'cos you cannot alway's trust the integrity of people who download your models.

Catlin

Message edited on: 01/02/2005 09:47

Wow, I have to make some of those for my next party. It would be cool if they could light up when you tip your glass.

Thank you all for the interest shown. I can now easily go on with my artistic deeds and still sleep well. And I must say that its sad bastards that delibiratly steel others models or concepts without telling they did. Just let us know this in the forum when its been done and we could give them the comments they deserve.

Fortunately, the person only comes to visit here, they have taken residence in another place. I tried to correct this quietly, but I see it has not taken, so I guess I will have to go higher up, something I did not want to do, but feel I have no other recourse, but those of you who frequent other places, will see it or have seen it. We do state in our Terms of Use on every page that our models are not to be changed and then sold or given away freely...etc. I do have to say that the integrety of the Bryce Forum is in place. You should all be proud, this Forum is a great help to others and has members that have scrupples. Also, Stoner I do not want to take away from your subject, so this converstation can be taken to another forum or ended, I just wanted some guidelines. I do hope others will eventually learn not to use others creations, I don't know how that can give anyone satisfaction, to receive comments or money for work done by someone else. Sharen

First, IANAL, but: Sharen, if they are creating their own models with a few different details, I don't think you can do anything. Legally, it would be a different expression of the same idea. Unless the details are completely insignificanat, in which case you could claim copyright infringement. Like, if the lock on a chest is open instead of closed, and so on. But if it's happening regularly, and if the person specifically targets you, you might have grounds for stalking. Still, it would be best if you could consult a real lawyer, or ask here in Copyright forum, at least, cause there are people who know more about it than me there. OTTH, if you remember the guy who, on 3DC, started selling a model done completely after a tutorial of draculaz... Drac contacted the owners of the site and the model was withdrawn. So you should contact somebody who's above the person. And be prepared to document it. It would be ideal if you had the complete timetable, like, you did the model on January 1st, the other one appeared on Januray 7th, and so on. And Stoner, there was something under the title of Skull Cocktail at http://www.ei.educ.ab.ca/sch/ajs/art/art2.htm, but the page is not available, and the Ardrossan High School moved pages, and there' nothing on the new site.

We are documenting it, and will contact our real attorney. And thank you for this added info, we will document this also, so we don't forget to ask. Sharen

Stoner, Some ideas are common, how many different madonnas can you come up with? NVIATWAS has been done here so many times we have an abbrivation for it. You may post it and have someone say, "That's from that drunk driving billboard you passesd every day to school." You can always edit your gallery to give credit if it turns out your memory gets jogged. Sharen, I'm going to IM you some things so as not to tip off your problem.

Thank you :-)

SAMS3D, Sorry to hear this nastiness is happening to you and Mike. Obviously there are people out there with little scruples and morale values, always at the ready to make a quick dollar off the sweat and hard work of other peoples backs. I have had some copyright legal entanglement problems in the past where the perp had a lawyer. Unfortunately in my case at least, the entire issue revolves around money from top to bottom but I managed to win in the end since my aggressiveness showed I had the tenacity and willingness to take the issue to a conclusive end.

Basically the way its set up is if you have registered your work or works with the Copyright Office you stand a better chance of reversing legal fees and expenses and collecting royalties and damages than if you didnt register your work. In many situations, none registered work copyright infringement may get the perpetrator to cease and desist only, except perhaps in the most obvious criminal situations can the owner get any restitution for their efforts.

There have been many cases in which someones original work has been picked apart and changed so as to get over the copyright issue and these are more difficult to establish in singular occurrences than say, someone who systematically and continuously does this since in doing so, establishes the modus operandi and leaves a trail of bread crumbs making it easier to show culpability in court. Which is what your situation sounds like.

Obviously the copyright laws have changed over recent years. It would be prudent to seek recent and up to date information on the subject. As already has been mentioned, there is a copyright forum here in Renderosity you can visit. There are also many books on the subject of art and copyrighting procedures on the market. The Tad Crawford books are readily available: Legal guide for the Visual Artist the professional handbook and Business and Legal Forms for Fine Artists are two I have in my procession. You can also gain access to more information here:

California

California Lawyers for the Arts
Fort Mason Center
Building C. Room255
San Francisco, CA 94123
(415) 775-7200

or

1549 11th Street, Suite 200
Santa Monica, CA 90401
(310) 395-8893

Illinois

Lawyers for the Creative Arts
213 West Institute Place, Suite 411
Chicago, Illinois 60610
(312) 944-2787

New York

Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts
1 East 53rd Street
New York, New York 10022
(212) 319-2787

The American Council for the Arts
(paintings, sculpture, drawing crafts, photography and mixed media)
Hotline: 1-800-232-2789 Monday-Friday from 2-5 P.M. East Standard Time.

LOLDISCLAIMERit has been a while since my particular problem and most of this information comes from dated resources so some access information may have changed since then. Try them at your own risk.

Some snippets from Legal Guide for the Visual Artist the professional handbook by Tad Crawford 3rd Edition Copyrighted 1995:

Artists should never feel intimidated, helpless or victimized. Legal and business considerations exist from the moment an artist conceives a work or receives an assignment.(Page7)

Ideas, titles, names and short phrases are usually not copyrightable because they lack a
sufficient amount of expression. Ideas can be protected by contract as discussed on page 88. Likewise style is not copyrightable, but specific pieces of art created as the expression of a style are copyrightable.

Computer programs and the visual images created through the use of computers are both
copyrightable, unless the image is uncopyrightable (for example, because it is a typeface
or a basic geometric shape)

In August of 1985 Conservative Digest was acquired by a new publisher and, subsequently changed the look of its cover to bear a close resemblance to the cover of Reader's Digest. This new look for Conservative Digest was publicized at a press conference held at the National Press Club where a copy of the October 1985 issue was displayed. The editor-in-chief stated that if Conservative Digest "looks like Reader's Digest, I'm sure that Wally and Lila are somewhere up there saying, 'That's great, kids. Keep it up. Wally and Lila were DeWitt Wallace, the founder of Reader's Digest, and his wife.

Whatever Wally and Lila might have thought, Reader's Digest warned Conservative Digest not to use such a similar design. Despite the agreement by Conservative Digest not to use the design after the October and November issues, Reader's Digest brought suit for copyright infringement. The two covers appear in black and white as figures 1 and 2 on page 244.

Before the court could conclude that an infringement had taken place, it had to decide
whether the cover of Reader's Digest was copyrightable. The court's opinion is quite interesting on this point: "None of the individual elements of the Reader's Digest cover - ordinary lines, typefaces, and colors - qualifies for copyright protection. But the distinctive arrangement and layout of these elements is entitled to protection as a graphic work."

Finding the two designs substantially similar and noting that Conservative Digest had access to the Reader's Digest cover and thus could have copied it, the court upheld the determination that there had been a copyright infringement. However, since Conservative Digest had already stopped the infringement, the award for copyright infringement was only $500. The court refused to award attorney's fees. Under the trade dress provisions of the Lanham Act, the court ordered that Conservative Digest make no further use of the two offending covers from October and November. (The Reader's Digest Association, Inc. v The Conservative Digest, Inc., 642 ESupp. }44,aff'd 821 E 2d 800)

Multimedia works, which combine two or more media, are becoming more prevalent, especially with the advent of CD-ROM disks and players. Such works are certainly copyrightable.(Pages 10-11)

Hope Im not hit for copyright infringement since I disclosed the sources fully and if anything, I helped publicize Mr. Crawfords handbook.

Thank you Quest. This is a wealth of info that was needed. Sharen

Old and tried method of protecting your intellectual copyright is to mail a copy to yourself by registered mail, and file all the unopened envelopes. On the outside of the envelope you write a detailed description of what's inside, to be sure you can lay your hands on the right envelope in the event of a court case! I have registered envelopes going back 10 years, as I was badly stung by someone producing casts from my work and selling them. Also, before making a presentation of design ideas to companies I do the 'sending it to myself' thing as well, as once people have heard an idea they frequently think that they've come up with the idea themselves, or that "it's so simple that anyone could have thought of it". I always let people know that I'm doing that, to bring home to them the fact that ideas are intellectual copyright.

Pog, consider yourself lucky not having to actually go through a copyright infringement legal battle. I, like you and many other people, believed in what is commonly known as the poor mans copyright. That is, until I had to go through the steps of protecting my work against a probable copyright infringers lawyer.

Although mailing your work to yourself may irrefutably establish that you had procession of the work on a certain date as proven by the postmark of a federal entity, in this case the federal post office, it does not prove that the work didnt exist prior to that date, and thats assuming that the envelope is postmarked as often isnt the case.

It is acknowledged that it is best you get a trust worthy 3rd party witness and this is where the Copyright Office comes into play by establishing itself as the notary witness to your work. Especially if you rely on your artwork as a business and the root of your livelihood. Remember, in that case, its a business and needs to be protected. Furthermore the copyright fee is presently somewhere in the neighborhood of $30-$35 dollars (USD). Not an overly backbreaking charge for protection.

Mind you, it is not necessary to register your work but if you expect to get full protection under the law, including lawyers fees and expenses paid and suing for royalties and damages (sometime your work may be used for very unsavory purposes) then you should get your work registered with the Copyright Office. This is especially true if your art is also your business and means of survival.

If you choose to attain the services of a lawyer, that fee may rapidly go up to better than $600. Motto is: do all the legwork yourself, its cheaper in the long run. You can also group works under one copyright registration.

Even before the 1978 copyright law change, it was questionable if the poor mans copyright was of little benefit. And this I had to learn the hard way myself by paying for advice from my lawyers.

$30 to $35 doesn't sound too bad. I gave up registering my designs because it costs so much here - think it cost three or four hundred pounds when I did a bulk registration of designs for paving systems (in 1996) and you had to renew the registration every few years, if not annually :^(

one of the steps involved in getting a copyright (or patent for that matter) is getting a search done by experts..you'd be surprised how many things have been invented over and over..;)
btw..someone actually set up a bunch of monkeys with typewriters as an experiment, and let them at it..no Shakespeare..it turns out that monkeys, like humans, are not really sufficiently 'random' to get the 'combination'right (saw it in the paper sometime last year..I'm not making this up..;)
heck, I see 'ideas' stolen all the time; I've had some of my picture ideas redone after I did them (now if I could stop them from doing them so much better than mine..;) but when you throw money into it..that's over the line..