Fri, Jan 3, 1:50 PM CST

Renderosity Forums / Community Center



Welcome to the Community Center Forum

Forum Moderators: wheatpenny Forum Coordinators: Anim8dtoon

Community Center F.A.Q (Last Updated: 2025 Jan 02 4:06 pm)

Forum news, updates, events, etc. Please sitemail any notices or questions for the staff to the Forum Moderators.



Subject: Tacky or Cool ?


spinner ( ) posted Sun, 24 April 2005 at 2:45 AM · edited Sat, 21 December 2024 at 9:20 PM

Recently I've seen more and more meshes and textures sold based on tutorials I've done myself here and there.

Is it just me, or is this both tacky, uncool, and misleading the customer, as they think they're buying an original product ?

Discuss. (edit: added based)

~S

Message edited on: 04/24/2005 02:49


joffry ( ) posted Sun, 24 April 2005 at 4:49 AM

:)). Tacky. You get into the question > Is it really yours to sell? I've seen a few that I've done in free stuff. I like seeing if mine came out any different.


pearce ( ) posted Sun, 24 April 2005 at 7:00 AM

It's getting a free ride, for sure. But how ethically different is it from seeing a successful-selling product and deciding to jump on the bandwagon and make your own version for sale? I supposed it comes down to what "based on" means in any given situation; there's probably a point at which a derivative could breach copyright, but there's a big grey area there as ideas can't hold copyright. Mick ;)


spinner ( ) posted Sun, 24 April 2005 at 7:09 AM

Heya Mick :-) Trust me - If you ever decided to generate a tutorial on any of your architectural stuff, I'd do it several times, but I would'nt sell the results, because there already is an original version (which probably hasn't been poserised;-)). For me the difference lies in the fact that if you do a tutorial, you do it to learn. You don't sell your old school notebooks and pass them off as fresh, original thoughts, right ? As for the bandwagon - I am not sure what you mean ? Are we talking texture sets, add-ons or movie"inspired" stuff ? I agree that ideas can't hold copyright, and that a lot of overlaps will happen - several people can have the same idea independently of eachother - perfectly normal and understandable. ~S


LornaW ( ) posted Sun, 24 April 2005 at 8:34 AM

Very deceptive and yes, one does indeed wonder how these folks get away with making bucks off someone elses creations and ideas and making it look as if these people that just make a texture here, a magnet there, or diddle daddle around with a few morphs, well, they make it truly sound as if this stuff they do is a whole new model! It's like me adding makeup to myself and putting falsies in my top and strutting myself with a new seductive pose and an innocent look and calling myself a whole new person! Yet, what does get me is, addon and redo folks are usually the first and loudest to scream about someone else stealing their awsome work!


Spiritbro77 ( ) posted Sun, 24 April 2005 at 9:54 AM

Spinner, good question. And it brings to mind something I brought up in another thread. The difference between being legal and ethical. While it may be "legal" to follow a tutorial and sell the results( I don't know that for a fact, lets ask cooler)I hardly think it is ethical. Too many get hung up on the "well its legal to do so" aspect of copyright and IP, and don't stop to think about the ethics of the situation. Just beacuse an act is legal, doesn't mean its the right thing to do. :)


Kendra ( ) posted Sun, 24 April 2005 at 10:51 AM

Probably no more tacky or annoying than seeing a popular model you bought at daz on a website for actual model miniatures.

...... Kendra


elizabyte ( ) posted Sun, 24 April 2005 at 11:35 AM

I guess I'd have to know the details. The way I see it, tutorials are there to learn from, and once you've learned the technique taught, that's in your head and yours to use as you wish. But, as I said, it depends what it actually IS... ;) bonni

"When a man gives his opinion, he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch." - Bette Davis


spinner ( ) posted Sun, 24 April 2005 at 11:45 AM

Ok - example: The Joan of Arc tutorial is a sort of rite of passage for a lot of 3D Maxers, myself included. You're taught how to model a female figure from scratch, and you're shown exactly where the polys are supposed to go and how they are supposed to be tweaked. So in that respect, any mesh created by following that tut poly for poly would very much not be an original model. I know of at least ONE Joan of Arc tut figure that was sold as an original mesh. Despite the mesh's face looking a lot different, the body is very much the same. So how could this be an original model if it's already been done by someone else, and the recipe is posted on the web ? ~S


pearce ( ) posted Sun, 24 April 2005 at 1:08 PM

Attached Link: http://www.islandmadness.com/images/stupidhats/sh101.jpg

"As for the bandwagon - I am not sure what you mean ?" All I meant was that maybe somebody puts a particular kind of product in the marketplace that hasn't been there before (say, big Carmen Miranda-type hats covered in artificial fruit) and it sells like crazy, so others start making them as well. Mick. That ISN'T me in the pic, BTW (see link)


spinner ( ) posted Sun, 24 April 2005 at 1:15 PM

I could have sworn that was you ;-) Must be the glasses ];-) ~S


pearce ( ) posted Sun, 24 April 2005 at 3:42 PM

Hehee :) I'm not quite so bearded. So, from now on, watch out for big Carmen Miranda-type hats covered in artificial fruit appearing in the MP. If that should happen, you know you saw it here first :) m.


cooler ( ) posted Mon, 25 April 2005 at 2:11 AM

Howdy folks, Legally I don't see a problem with using a tutorial to make something for sale, provided there are no restrictions against it in the tutorial itself. A tutorial is, after all a set of instructions, like a repair manual or even a recipe. You wouldn't expect to buy a cookbook & then find out you couldn't use the apple pie recipe to make something for your kids' bake sale would you? Does that mean I think it's okay? No. I do think it's extremely rude, especially without notifying or asking the tutorial writer 1st. Of course I'm one of those walking anachronisms who thinks manners actually make a difference :-) What I would suggest is to include the following (feel free to steal & adapt as needed :-).... This tutorial was created so people could understand the principles behind it & use that understanding to further their skills. It is NOT supposed to be an end in itself. If you are planning to use the output of this tutorial, as is, in a commercial product.. don't. If you do I promise you that there will be a free version, as close to yours as legally possible, pimped on every online store, forum, message board, email list, and usenet newsgroup that you've ever THOUGHT of selling on.... Have a nice day :-)


hauksdottir ( ) posted Mon, 25 April 2005 at 4:53 AM

As cooler says, it is bad manners to rip off a tutorial and sell it as original work. It is deceitful, too. I remember a mansion-type entry-room with a staircase where the seller had built it from a tutorial, poserized it, and a buddy textured it... he sold it without even giving his buddy name-credit. :( Not a merchant that I'll buy from. Reputation has to count for something. If someone took material from a tutorial and modified it a lot and then sold the product, with credit for the underlying tut, that should be ok. That is similar to saying that a merchant's resource kit was used for the eyes and teeth... the buyer knows how much original material is in the package. As an example... Dr Geep has a tutorial on building a house. Cherokee69 has made a 3-bay antique car garage by following the steps. Both structures have walls, floor, roof and both were built from the ground up. However, someone else following Dr Geep's tuts would not be able to recreate that garage without Cherokee's files and measurements... too much original work has gone into it. Cherokee is recreating the buildings on his grandfather's farm and will probably never sell, but if he did, I don't see a problem. OTOH, if Snidely Snippet took the tutorial for the pergola, painted it rose-bud-pink, and sold it as an original Temple to Rosamunda... many of us would be rolling our eyes at his, yes, tackiness. Carolly


bonestructure ( ) posted Mon, 25 April 2005 at 7:46 AM

My question would be, were substantial changes made in the mesh which, despite it being guided by a tutorial, made it an original model? That's the line for me.

Talent is God's gift to you. Using it is your gift to God.


Poppi ( ) posted Mon, 25 April 2005 at 4:38 PM

personally, i think when folks are still in the tutorial using stage they shouldn't be selling. maybe as a freebie. wasn't that how the freebie system worked a time ago...before all the hoopla to jump immediately into the marketplace? folks would do tutes and stuff, and give them away while perfecting their craft.


hauksdottir ( ) posted Mon, 25 April 2005 at 7:49 PM

Poppi, But sometimes even professionals, with decades of experience, go back and take classes or work through a tutorial. If we reach a point where we can't learn anymore, or feel that we don't have anything more to learn, we might as well get planted under the rosebushes. However, professionals usually are a bit more rigorous about what they consider putting into the marketplace. Would any of us enter a paint-by-numbers Mona Lisa into an art competition? Carolly


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.