Yes, the shape was approximated and the JPs were used and I don't technically see problem with that as the JPs (and I mean bends, blending zones, and so forth) are program settings of Poser and likely have no meaning outside of Poser. DAZ apparently has a problem with that (which they don't with making clothing, except for catsuits or somesuch) as it would compete with Victoria 3 as a figure. Though, they both are free, but regardless...

Several good examples were posted of how far it could go if one was "allowed" to do this or that. I understand all the POV there and the matter was settled.

However, what is really intriguing is that DAZ is also producing a program that is (or will be depending on your stance) is a competitor to Poser, is free at base level, and fully uses the settings of another program in order to directly load Poser library content.

That just strikes me as odd - as in it's okay if we do this in the name of fair use or whatever and this over here is clearly wrong. Seems muddy.

Technically it is. Under the P6 license for example: "You may not sell, distribute, or copyright exported Restricted Content geometry data in any format of any kind unless expressly permitted by this agreement. Re-triangulated, simplified, subdivided, or other Derivative forms of exported geometry data remain Restricted Content." .obj encoding or Rtencoding is usually acceptable as it requires the original meshes to decode. However, that's a community understanding and not written into the Poser license agreement (that I can see)

WadeTripp: Yes, it can be legal. Frankensteining objects for personal use should be viewed as "fair use." Say, person A frankensteins objects X and Y to make object Z. Person B has a license to use X and Y. Person A gives a copy of object Z to person B. Can ANYONE prove that Person B did not do the frankensteining himself, for personal use? I don't think so. The trick is making sure Person B has the base objects. And that is what RTEncoder and Objaction Mover are for - making object Z unusable unless you already have objects X and Y. Encoding with base objects also implies the maker used portions of those base objects to create his new object. Which seems fair to me. Most 3D content producers allow the use of RTEncoder or Objaction Mover for encrypting the derivative works with the original. DAZ is more strict (exceedingly so, see the thread Acadia posted). Whatever the situation, it is always advisable to contact the creator of the original mesh if the creation of derivative works is not clearly covered in their EULA.

It is interesting that copyright law was initially intended to limit ownership and ensure that intellectual property became public domain. It was designed to allow and fostering creative and cultural progress. Yet are we using it as a tool to achieve the complete oposite. 3D content is a very new industry, how will meshes, like Uni-mesh, be viewed in 50 or 70 years? Could Vicky become another Micky? Will future models need to carefully trace their digital DNA? Will the Mesh Police be banging on the door? Do the choices of now effect the future? Ahhhhh, here's the nice men, in white coats with my medication;-)

geep - to go back to your post #21, yes, strictly speaking, that would be a copyright violation, since the poly was extracted from a copyrighted mesh; however, I doubt any court in your country or mine would be happy to accept that anyone would have suffered loss because of it, since just about anyone could make a 4 sided poly in any 3d modelling application. I believe the issue balances on fairness to both parties and any losses suffered. That said, in any conflict, those with the biggest guns always win.

Quote - It was designed to allow and fostering creative and cultural progress.

Which is exactly how I have always viewed art. I draw and can paint, but don't consider myself in league with the artists I run across who's art is frequently used in collage and derivative works. I create in order to share something beautiful and if it inspires others to try their hand at art and to create, then I've accomplished my goal.

Dr Geep I belive the 3rd image in the series would concern the copyright of vertices instead of faces, yes? Cheers, Cliff

kaveman: you are right about the origin of copyright. Patents were invented to accomodate the spread of knowledge, I believe somewhere in the 16th or 17th century. Today they are used to prevent knowledge from being spread, it seems. A very sad development indeed. That said, I definitely don't condone using someone else's intellectual property and passing it off as your own. It should be possible to create a derivative work and distribute it, provided that an agreement is made with the original creator. Usually that means the original creator gets a cut of the profit, or in the case of encoding, the original creator has a good chance of increasing his sales. There is nothing wrong with making money!

There is nothing wrong with making money! Sacriledge! Blasphemy! Burn him! ;-)

Hey! I gotta eat too! ;)

Yes, the new mesh looks as a part of a sphere that is copyrighted by Platon?, Arquimedes?, Socrates???, damn!..., who has invented the sphere????

Hmmm ... in the beginning there was light, and it was shaped like a sphere. Oh no! Geep violated God's copyright! :-

AHH !!! ............ Money ! ...... Yes! ...... Now we are getting close to the heart of the matter. ;=]

Again, probably yes, but in my opinion isn't.

Have you ever copied (xeroxed?) a page from a book or magazine or copied a photograph? (rhetorical) Did you violate someone's copyright? (also, rhetorical) Did you have permission? (also, rhetorical) "If the urge to commit murder and the opportunity always came at the same time, which of us would escape hanging?" -Mark Twain ;=]

"If the urge to commit murder and the opportunity always came at the same time, which of us would escape hanging?" The one who avoided detection/capture? :) Cliff

The next step... Is it a violation to use the concept of a 3d point in space? or that car widow wipers automagicly starts when it rains, or the idea that something can vibrate in your hand for feedback fun. The US law say yes, and Sony has 90 million reasons to say no. Shocking. If you have the money and/or power you can stake your claim where-ever you want. Patents the Goldrush of the 90's. Might is right, the deepest pockets, the biggest guns, win. Is that "right" or "fair"? So we arrive at chaos, where you do what you want until someone bigger stomps you and takes what you have. That's what we see every day. And so that small creative individual silently hides their beautiful hair prop, that they would love to share with the community. The community that freely shared their knowledge to help him understand how to make. And the world becomes a sadder, drabber, uniform shade of grey. I hereby now claim all rights to that Shade of Grey. Knew there must be an angle here somewhere;-) "Money, get back. I'm all right Jack keep your hands off of my stack. Money, it's a hit. Don't give me that do goody good bullshit." PF DS. "The love of money is the root of evil" The Bible

You guys are dancing around with the wrong term. A piece can be both recognizable and derivative, and NOT be a copyright violation. (such as the last three words in that sentence) It is not recognizability that should be considered, but uniqueness when determining if a piece is derived from another original work. (clearly, those three words would not be sufficiently unique to be protected by copyright) Consider "uniqueness' and re-answer: the music chord; one polygon from a sphere; Frankensteining skullcaps; or making a 3D mold of another mesh, and the answers seem to divide themselves quite clearly.

Interesting discussion. In the Doc's image in post 21, if duplicating a polygon were a copyright infringement, would it still be an infringement if the offending polygon was then moved to another location in 3d space, such as to the other side of the sphere? Bearing in mind that it would now have different vertex locations, a different surface normal etc compared to its original.

Image 1 - Doing so for personal use is not illegal. Redistributing -- that is, giving the end result to someone else (anyone else) -- is illegal. Copyright protects the original element from distribution. Meshes are considered software, and covered specifically under the subsection of law that deals with software -- not books, not audio, not paintings. Textures for meshes are covered under the section dealing with images. THe two sections have some minor differences. Image 2 - Single polygons are not protected, as they do not deomonstrate enough original content -- in this case (and specifically this case), it would be the sum of the parts -- iow, the way that several of them are put together -- that matters. Image 3 - See answer to image 2 above. In response to 55: Copyright was never intended to limit ownership. It was intended to limit the distribution of materials in a way that deprives the creator of that property. For any reason. Also, yes, there is a good chance Victoria could become like Mickey. Both are trademarked, and trademark law is a very different body of law from Copyright in concept. Chief among them is that trademark can be renewed indefinitely so long as the mark is used in such a way that it signifies a product or service and does not pass into common usage. Response to 38: The work you have made is a derivative work. Under terms of the EULA for v3, you can distribute the top since it is not an object that competes directly with the original item (V3). Caveat: Were you to do the same with a piece of clothing from DAZ that is the same thing, you would NOt be able to distribute it under the terms of the EULA. blah blah, blha blha blah, blah blah. blah :D

0 0.422412 0.030099 0.008613 0.423168 0.028965 0.018503 0.424212 0.026651 0.025691 0.42431 0.02191 0.029962 0.423583 0.014981 0.032698 0.423424 0.005262 0.034368 0.42393 -0.005591 0.03444 0.424202 -0.016511 0.032717 0.424088 -0.026952 0.028648 0.424244 -0.03591 0.021384 0.424806 -0.042948 0.011192 0.425112 -0.047264 0.0082 0.428228 0.024448 0.016535 0.428939 0.021981 0.021886 0.429615 0.017703 0.025724 0.429451 0.011393 0.027738 0.429319 0.003498 0.029244 0.42994 -0.005853 0.029614 0.430257 -0.015019 0.027849 0.430289 -0.023856 0.024359 0.43069 -0.031571 0.018137 0.431117 -0.036581 0.009596 0.431365 -0.039564 0.006845 0.435105 0.016741

As a written collection, yes. As software (and therefore as the coordinates for a mesh object), no. This assumes you hand typed those coordinates and did not derive them from another source. If you derived them from another source, then no.

geep - do you remember the early 90's copyright confusion in Australia, where it was ruled that software could not be copyrighted because it was "just a bunch of instructions"? Naturally, the software industry wasn't happy about it and eventually Oz fell in line with the rest of us.

Yup, good point, ... done there, been that. ;=]

"And those professing themselves to be wise, became fools."

• The Good Book

Interesting, isn't it ...... Poser is "just a bunch of instructions."

Maybe so, ............ but WHAT A BUNCH !!!

;=]

Geep: if your using the grouping tool to duplicate parts of a figure for your own privat use ... no violation! if you put it on MP or in FS ... violation! Greets Chris

But ... if you give it or sell it, either alone or as part of something else, you have (probably) violated the copyright of the original creator.

cheers,
dr geep
;=]

Dr. Geep sez:

Thank you !

... to all those who responded and participated in the "discussion."

cheers,
dr geep
;=]

Dr. Geep! Dr. Geep! holding up my hand I have one more question, sir. The Grouping Tool aside, you did an excellent tutorial on using Poser primitives to make things. If I use one of those primitives in an obj or prop which I distribute, am I violating copyright? Even if the Poser EULA explicitly allows the redistribution of primitives when used as parts of the mesh of a prop (which as near as I can tell it does NOT) there might still be issues, it seems to me, because CL still owns copyright of the mesh, and who knows how broadly that copyright might be applied in future laws or court cases, EULA aside? It has been said in other threads that the EULA overrides copyright, but is that always the case and will it always be the case in the future?

Hi Qualien,

That is an excellent question.

Because the primatives ...
e.g., Square, Box, Ball, Cone, Cylinder
... are not unique to Poser ...
(That is, they are usually available in almost all modeling software programs.)
... I do not believe there is a copyright issue with any of the commonly available geometric objects.

The problem would occur as soon as you use any geometry that is available ONLY in Poser, i.e., Posette, Dork or any part of their geometry.

I believe this to be correct but, to be sure, if you have a specific question, you should ask the Legal Department of Curious Labs.

*** POSER 5 END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT (EULA) ***
(Note - there is a link at the bottom of the page for email)

Send an email to: ---> legal@curiouslabs.com

cheers,
dr geep
;=]

P.S. If you use Dr. Geep's "Magic Box" to make your props, you will never have a problem with a copyright issue. ;=]

" It has been said in other threads that the EULA overrides copyright," If the EULA states that you can kill somebody feel free to kill all you don't like, it's legal!

Thank you, Dr. Geep for extending class a bit longer (I got here late, have a cold, you can ask my mom, honest!) It seems to me that your point "Is this polygon in violation of copyright laws?" might also apply to the Poser primitives, no? CL cannot copyright the forms 'Square, Box, Ball, Cone, Cylinder', certainly, but what about their particular Box, Ball, etc. the meshes of which actually are different from the Cube, Sphere, etc. primitives in say Carrara? Someone said that the piece of mesh had to be "recognizable", but the Poser sphere is more recognizable than your example polygon, and so more 'copyrightable', yes? kawecki, your point is mine also: Who can assure me that CL couldn't conceivably tell me someday that my mesh using their primitive is a copyright violation even if their EULA says otherwise?

Excerpt from:

*** POSER 5 END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT (EULA) ***

CONTENT DISTRIBUTION

I. The purpose of defining certain content as Restricted Content is to protect the Companys investment, interests, and ownership of Restricted Content. It is not the Companys policy to unreasonably restrict or inhibit any third partys creative or commercial activities. The following are Legitimate Uses of Restricted Content:

• Creating characters or props based on Restricted Content in proprietary file formats, where the original (or modified) geometry, texture, or other Restricted Content Files are not distributed with said characters or props. - - - - - -

;=]

Looks to my untrained eye that,

"...the original (or modified) geometry, texture, or other Restricted Content Files are not distributed..." [NOTE: This language is exactly the same in the P6 EULA, I see]

means that using the primitives in redistributed stuff is prohibited.

Guess we all had better stick with Dr. Geep's Magic Box.

re: "Guess we all had better stick with Dr. Geep's Magic Box."

Can't ... it's copyrighted.

;=]

Ouch! wanders away, thinking how to make a fortune selling his own brand of trademarked, patented primitives

Just kidding ........ come back !!! You can do whatever you want with my "Magic Box" ... that's part of the "magic." cheers, dr geep ;=]

Damn! I cannot use anymore the sphere!!! Well... I can use an isosurface where each point of the surface has the same distance to a predefined point.

"I can use an isosurface where each point of the surface has the same distance to a predefined point."

HEY, that might work! Why didn't I think of that? Now if you can just think of a replacement for the plane we could use four of them and make Geep's magic box, and stay out of Federal Copyright-Infringer Prison.

"Now if you can just think of a replacement for the plane we could use four" Here you have it: A surface where each point satisfies the following equation: x.Nx + y.Ny + z.Nz + D = 0 You can create a great variety of these new planes just changing the values of the normal N and the constant D.

Dr Geep's Magic Box ... Stay tuned for ........................... the secret code and, you too, can stay out of the FCIP*. ;=] * Federal Copyright-Infringer Prison

Dear Dr Geep & God: proprietary ownership confuses me. Can u please draw me a map it would ensure I did not anger the copyright gods ;) ps: reads whispered www scribble : *.jpeg vs *.gif the owners tried/trying to prevent public usage citing proprietary something.... and they can stop anyone etc nuther big owner warning that they will not be supporting this causing widespread panic ; huffing and puffing whilst everyone is blowing everything down! yours truly ~confusticated pot dweller ;P