Renderosity Forums / Poser - OFFICIAL
Welcome to the Poser - OFFICIAL Forum
Forum Coordinators: RedPhantom
Poser - OFFICIAL F.A.Q (Last Updated: 2025 Jan 03 1:41 pm)
Subject: Discussion: Copyright Violation ??? ........... ;=] .........
- 1
- 2
I would say that basically anything goes -- so long as someone only uses the copied meshes for their own personal work. Assuming, of course, that they have a legit copy of the original model in the first place. Any selling and/or free giveaways of the copied mesh would constitute a violation.
"already owns the head".... This seems like a hard point, because we have all these EULA agreements in the 3d world, which are sort of like copyrights but not really. If we take it out of the 3d area, it's easier: Let's say I Xerox a copy of a book and sell it to you. I've violated the author's copyright whether you already have a copy of the book or not.
My python page
My ShareCG freebies
I have never seen a clause concerning content that prohibited alteration for personal use. And I'd refuse to buy content with such a clause in the EULA. Distributing is another matter. That would be a copyright violation. Giving it to someone else who already owns the original mesh - usually no problem. But if you want to distribute the "frankensteined" (I love that word!) mesh, you'd better make sure that the recipients already have the original mesh. And that is what Objaction Mover and RTEncoder are for.
The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter
The question is, would giving it to someone else who already own the head, would that be a copyright violation?
Another question:
What if a company (not an individual) owned a legitimate copy of the head -- someone at the company copied & modified the mesh for work-related reasons -- and then gave copies of the modified mesh out to other employees for, say, advertising work? Would the company need to buy separate copies of the mesh for each employee that was using the modified/copied mesh?
What then?
My guess would be yes.....that the company would have to purchase multiple copies of the original mesh to be legal (one copy per employee using the mesh). They could use a modified mesh -- but only one modified copy per each legal copy.
Tool: Nope. Any object in the world can be (and probably has been) used to commit a crime. By that standard everything is illegal.
My python page
My ShareCG freebies
Very interesting question about that company. When it comes to applications, their EULAs are usually pretty clear on the matter. But what if a company team works on, say, a CG movie, using third-party models. Must the company purchase 5 copies of model if the team consists of 5 persons? Another question: I have more than one machine. I have a backup copy of my Poser content on my secondary machine. Is this a copyright violation? I have a single Poser license and I work on one machine at a time. Is it a copyright violation to install Poser on the secondary machine? Even if only one copy runs at a time?
The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter
I have a single Poser license and I work on one machine at a time. Is it a copyright violation to install Poser on the secondary machine? Even if only one copy runs at a time?
From what I've heard, it's kosher to have a program installed on both your desktop and on a laptop.....so long as only one computer at a time is being used.
But what if a company team works on, say, a CG movie, using third-party models. Must the company purchase 5 copies of model if the team consists of 5 persons?
Consider the $14,000 Zygote anatomy models.
What if a company had a team of 10 people working on a project using the Zygote models?
Would that company have to purchase 10 copies of a $14,000 mesh in order to be legal?
Another question: I have more than one machine. I have a backup copy of my Poser content on my secondary machine. Is this a copyright violation?
My understanding is that you can make an infinite number of backup copies.
For example, a backup hard-disk array with 50 hard drives would technically represent 50 copies of a program. But since they are all backup copies, it's allowed. Message edited on: 03/28/2005 14:22
My answer: True or False? It depends. If you copy the head geometry to create a skullcap for YOUR OWN USE, it is not a copyright violation. I think that might fall under fair use. If you copy the head geometry to create a skullcap for distribution, either free or for sale, it IS a copyright violation, because you are distributing something that was in part created by someone else. >> But what if a company team works on, say, a CG movie, using third-party models. Must the company purchase 5 copies of model if the team consists of 5 persons? The solution there, it would seem, is to locate it on a central server that all users have access to.
$14,000 for a model, whow, that's a lot of money. Even for a company. I think - but that's up to Zygote - that the company purchases a license to use the model companywide. I'd have to read the license agreements to be sure. Anyway, models in that price range are clearly not intended for hobbyists, so I expect that the license agreement targets companies, not individuals.
The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter
I answered this on another forum here, but I'll repost here: I know the answer to this is yes because there was a problem about a figure having vicky's hands or something, posted in the Poser forum. However, personally I think it's stupid. So a skull cap has the same shape and dimensions as another. I don't see that being a problem if the rest of the figure is different and unique. It's a very small portion of the whole. I can see if someone did the reverse and used the entire figure, changing only the nose, or a finger or the ears, or in this case a skull cap. But the percentage of the figure being discussed is less than 1% of the whole. It's like someone painting the Leaning Tower of Pizza and then discovering someone else painted it too and both painted images lean at the exact same angle. Another example are cooking recipes. How many published recipes are there out there for kung pau chicken? Most have the same ingredients with a slight variation in some items as to quantity, with many ingredients being the same proportion. I think this copyright stuff is getting over the top. Someone could build something from the ground up and by some freaky co-incidence happen to get the same sequence of numbers for a small portion of their figure and suddenly find themselves in a lawsuit because someone claims they discovered that sequence first. I'll venture a good guess that everyone here has photocopied a page or pages of book (IE: for term paper research, or a recipe etc.), printed a page found online, taped a movie off of the television... all considered copyright violations
"It is good to see ourselves as
others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we
are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not
angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to
say." - Ghandi
There have been threads in the past of people who took the sleeves from one outfit, the bodice of another, the skirt of another, and merged it all together to create their own product. The percentages of the original figures were small. But the fact was that they were reused and "frankensteined" together to create a whole different product that was in actuality modeled by someone else. Copyright stuff is NOT getting over the top. The laws have not changed at all, they have always been the same. However, what HAS changed is that people are becoming more aware of what is or is not allowed.
Thought provoking! Hehe. What I remember from copyright lawsuits I've followed has to do with "characteristic parts of the original work." In music, a simple 5 chord guitar riff may be the characteristic of a song, so using the same riff in another song would be a copyright violation. Cases like this have happened. But it is not a copyright violation to use a C major chord - even if another song contains exactly the same C major chord. A single chord can not characterize a song. So it would come down to the term "recognizable". Taking the sleeves of outfit A and splicing them on the bodice of outfit B, then presenting that as your own product? No go, the sleeves and bodice are definitely recognizable. A single polygon - I like your way of presenting an extreme case! - will be unrecognizable. You'ld probably move the polygon a little, so the vertex locations will be different from the original. I'd say that any work - be it a mesh, a texture, a book, a musical piece - that contains recognizable portions of another work is a copyright violation.
The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter
The problem with this most recent example is that it brings up the question "Where do you draw the line?" If someone says "Well, one polygon should be OK", then someone will ask "Why not two, or three, or 1/4 of the model?" I'm also thinking that this thread might be best in the copyright forum, because that's where most folks go for explanations or discussion of what is or is not OK.
Quote - I'd say that any work - be it a mesh, a texture, a book, a musical piece - that contains recognizable portions of another work is a copyright violation.
Recognizable is the key word. Which brings me to the most recent case of DAZ making a site (Sixus1?) pull one of their figures because the artists used Vicky's hands. Now looking at the image you wouldn't see that. Only by ripping the thing apart and scruitinizing code etc, do you see the similarity. If it's VISIBLY recognizable, then yes, I agree that is stepping on someone's toes. But to go and rip apart figures looking for similarities that are not obvious to the eye is extreme and rather anal in my opinion.
"It is good to see ourselves as
others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we
are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not
angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to
say." - Ghandi
It's posted in the copyright forum as well. Some people may not read that forum so it's a good idea to have it here too. Besides, it gives a bit of a break from seeing all those "where is my Poser 6" posts :)
"It is good to see ourselves as
others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we
are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not
angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to
say." - Ghandi
Acadia ... let's say you spend a whole year creating a dozen textures that are ultra realistic and better than any other that have come on the market so far.
Now, let's say you sell them for $10.00 apiece. So someone goes out and buys all twelve of them for $120.00.
They turn around and take the eye textures from one set, the lips from another, the head texture from another, the chest from another, and so on. They group them together, do some color adjustments, flip some parts horizontally so they don't look exactly the same, and make a texture of their own. The whole process takes them less than a day. They sell it for $10.00 to compete against your textures.
Would it be extreme and anal of you to think that they are violating the rights you have as an artist?
Message edited on: 03/28/2005 15:59
it gives a bit of a break from seeing all those "where is my Poser 6" posts :) Not to mention "Child Nudity" forum riots....uh, I mean threads.
Acadia - obvious to WHOSE eye? Example: I have made some freebie dynamic clothes. I can recognize them instantly, since I've spent many hours working to get them the way I wanted. And I'm not even a professional in this area! Same goes for texture makers. The example by Deecey is a fine one, exactly this kind of texture copyright violation has had the copyright forum in an uproar a couple of months ago. The original maker of the texture recognized her work, even when it had been altered with filters, even when spots were added and/or removed. That recognition led to an in-depth investigation and the accusation of copyright infringement was proven to be true. The violator was permanently banned. I wouldn't be surprised if a modeler at DAZ with extensive experience with Vicki's hands would recognize the mesh structuire instantly. Let us not confuse "is it right" with "can you get away with it".
The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter
I was very chagrined to learn that reading books aloud to my children without prior written permission of the books publisher was a copyright violation... :( I'm serious. Geep! are you liscenced to post a likness of that poly in a public forum??? How about that likness of the "Poser 5" title /logo... did you clear the trademark issues? I wouldn't want anyone coming after you on it. I don't think my little P6 install disc has been born yet! But I'm already paying child support ;)
" The problem with this most recent example is that it brings up the question "Where do you draw the line?" If someone says "Well, one polygon should be OK", then someone will ask "Why not two, or three, or 1/4 of the model?"" simple. you cannot copyright 1 polygon. it's impossible. if you could, then V3 has now many copyright violations? 80 thousand? it's the same for low numbers of polygons. you hit the question when that number reaches a critical level - the level needed to make a recognisable model. 1,2,4 no matter. they are not enough to make a model in the way we're discussing. but 1/4 of a models polygons? yup that's enough. hell, if anyone stated "you've broken my copyright! there's 5 polygons the same as my model!" then we're all screwed.. since that same configuration of poly's could be by ILM, WETA, Me, You, Daz, anyone. there is no way to prove that few are from a certain mesh. but if you have enough to say make a face, thats different. thats recognisable and be unique to one mesh.
Khai, I realize that one polygon was an extreme example, I just brought up that question because you have to draw a line somewhere. At some point, the number of polygons WILL be recognizable by the original artist, just as textures can be easily recognizable by the original texturer. But as someone pointed out, you can also make those recognizable points UNrecognizable by moving the points around. So, if you are starting with something that someone else did, and trying to change what it looks like, why not just do the whole thing yourself? (Not meant to point fingers at anyone ... just a general rhetorical question.)
"The question is, would giving it to someone else who already own the head, would that be a copyright violation?" "That would be concidered Frankensteining." 3d Content seems to be me to be one of the strangest and indeed a unique area in relation to copyrights and intellectual property ownership. With many many different views. Saddly, I see two main controlling forces at work firstly, The my pockets are deeper than yours method, this is where a threat of legal action comes from a person or Co. that has the resources to take the matter to the lawyers. Both parties know that, due to the complexity of the issue it's going to be very very expensive. The poorer party normally agrees to the terms of the richer. We also see this method use indirectly as control over shops and outlets. You sell this contested product we will also sue you, rich wins poor looses. The other method I would call public crucifixion, this method of control is where a community, labels the goods and/or creator with nasty names, using public ridicule and abuse. This method is often overtly fuelled by competitors. A business normally doesn't want to be called Witches, Hackers, Pirates or Frankensteins. They want their community and potential customers to trust them. To save face and their market place they drop the contested product. The result is mob rule. In both these cases the real issues remain unresolved. There is no legal resolution and injustice is the inevitable results. Issues of what is right or fair are sidelined by the rich and powerful. Innovation and creativity may be eventually extinguished. The old laws of ownership and usage rights have not transferred well into this international/digital age and lawlessness prevails. I'm no lawyer but I know laws have national boundaries. So what is illegal in New Zealand may be ok in the US. Here it is illegal to rip your purchased CD to play on your MP3 player, for your own use. China has different set of copyright laws. Consensual sex in NZ is legal for 16 year olds, illegal in most of the US. By what method do we determine what is right or wrong? Returning to geeps point, I feel for personal use, it should be allowed under fair use. To sell the results as part of your own product, I don't have pockets deep enough or the courage to express any opinion in this forum. But rest assured I wouldn't do it.
Quote - The problem with this most recent example is that it brings up the question "Where do you draw the line?" If someone says "Well, one polygon should be OK", then someone will ask "Why not two, or three, or 1/4 of the model?"
Yes, where do you draw the line. What about things such as hex colours? If I mix up a really great shade of eggplant green and use it on the walls in my house and then see someone selling that shade at Sears 3 months later, did they steal it from me? Do I deserve royalties or the right to tell that company they can't sell the paint because I mixed that shade up 3 months prior and used it in my bathroom? What about if I see a painting that has pixels containing the exact same shades of blues as in paintings I've done. Does that mean they took my work into PSP to find the hex colour for their own painting? Like I said earlier, this entire thing with Copyright is becoming way over the top.
"It is good to see ourselves as
others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we
are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not
angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to
say." - Ghandi
Another question. Say, I load the V3 geometry into Max. I make a spline cage around her chest, snapping the spline vertices to existing vertices of the V3 geometry to get a very tight fit. Then I skin the spline cage and scale it up a bit to have it cover her chest. And after some more work, I have a tank top for V3. Can I distribute this tank top? I used the exact vertex locations of V3 in a certain stage of the development...
The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter
Quote - Would it be extreme and anal of you to think that they are violating the rights you have as an artist?
Maybe I'm cut from a different cloth, but it wouldn't bother me. However, I do understand that it bothers other people, and I respect that. But it's still my opinion that people spend way too much time dwelling over this topic.
"It is good to see ourselves as
others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we
are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not
angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to
say." - Ghandi
svdl brings up a very interesting point, if for no other reason then it would be very difficult for someone to produce form fitting cloths for Vicki any other way. Since form fitting cloths sells very well at DAZ they'd be shooting themselves in the foot by disallowing this.
Message edited on: 03/28/2005 16:46
Acadia ... if you did this for your livelihood - if that one year of time that you spent developing those textures was your only source of income, and you had to buy special equipment or pay other people to help you create them (models, digital photo equipment, and so on) would that make a difference?
No. I've run a home based business where I developed and merchandized products. I saw other products similar to what I made and it didn't bother me in the least.
"It is good to see ourselves as
others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we
are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not
angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to
say." - Ghandi
"Nope. Any object in the world can be (and probably has been) used to commit a crime." That's pretty much what the Supreme Court is taking up tomorrow in MGM vs. Grokster (P2P software)--are toolmakers responsible for illegal acts comitted using those tools. If you as a toolmaker are liable then you probably won't be selling that tool. Previously, the Court decided that Sony wasn't liable for people copying movies using their Betamax recorders. This time, who knows.
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken
I've already posted an answer to geep's original questions over in the copyright forum however there is something here that needs to be corrected.... Acadia said "Which brings me to the most recent case of DAZ making a site (Sixus1?) pull one of their figures because the artists used Vicky's hands." There is NO evidence that Sixus1 has EVER used parts of any DAZ figure in any of their models. And further I have enough respect for Les' skill as a modeller to expect that he ever would. Period. End of Story.
I have a dual deck VCR which allows for one button touch copying of VHS tapes. It's perfectly legal. Memorex was taken to court for developing and selling it, and the ruling was that it was fine to make and sell such a product. Memorex also states in their manual that anything copied should be for personal use only.
"It is good to see ourselves as
others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we
are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not
angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to
say." - Ghandi
Acadia mentions paint colours. There are trademarks which precisely specify a colour, in a particular context, as a trademark. There's a mobile phone company in the UK called "Orange", and they have a trademark on a particular shade of orange. But the orange square is only a trademark in a narrow context. Here in the UK we've also got such things as Registered Designs. "Copyright" isn't the only way of protecting intellectual property.
Quote - There is NO evidence that Sixus1 has EVER used parts of any DAZ figure in any of their models. And further I have enough respect for Les' skill as a modeller to expect that he ever would. Period. End of Story.
I didn't mean to stir the pot. I was simply using it as an example of something that was recently brought to this board regarding mesh similarities. If I got the site wrong, my apologies. However, there was a link from this board to another site where the site admins posted a long explaination of why they had to pull one of their figures from their store, and they stated it was because DAZ discovered that parts of their figure were the same as their own. Message edited on: 03/28/2005 17:17
"It is good to see ourselves as
others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we
are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not
angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to
say." - Ghandi
Basic rule - unless you've purchased a royalty-free source (depending on those terms), you cannot redistribute it in whole or in part. If it isn't yours don't share it. Often the time you've spend finding ways around this or that - loopholing - you could have taken steps already to make your own original ;) Approximating a shape with splines is okay. Lifting actual point locations (though perhaps easier) is pushing it. If there's a discernable pattern in the mesh overall that you did that, it's going to appear to be mesh theft and it is (in a sense) if you copied exact point coordinates in a discernable pattern. You could always ask the creator for permission if you're unsure of the stance of a method you're using.
.
Thanks Netherworks, that fits with what I was thinking. Again, "recognizable" seems to be the key word. I've used the spline approximation method quite often, but I doubt I used more than 1 vertex out of every 100 of V3 in the applicable body area. Just the landmarks, and then I moved the vertices about until the splines looked the way I wanted. Should be safe, at least the mesh doesn't look anything like the V3 mesh. I have seen some (freebie) conforming clothes for V3 that were clearly cut from the V3 mesh, and I don't think that is right. Made for a poorer quality cloth mesh too, by the way - high polygon density where it wasn't needed, and low poly density in places where a higher density would be useful.
The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter
Attached Link: http://www.poserforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=2625
Just to be clear that I wasn't inventing a situation, this is the link to the situation to which I was referring."It is good to see ourselves as
others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we
are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not
angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to
say." - Ghandi
- 1
- 2
Privacy Notice
This site uses cookies to deliver the best experience. Our own cookies make user accounts and other features possible. Third-party cookies are used to display relevant ads and to analyze how Renderosity is used. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understood our Terms of Service, including our Cookie Policy and our Privacy Policy.
What is your opinion? cheers, dr geep ;=]Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"
cheers,
dr geep ... :o]
edited 10/5/2019