Here's a question for everyone, so feel free to post your opinion: How many of you download a copyrighted item, but are frustrated by the fact that you can't use it in any of your commercial projects. For example, I like to make Star Wars vehicles and I think people like to download them. Even though I may give permission for people to use the models in their images, permission is needed from LucasFilm to use the vehicles in a commercial project. There were similar issues with the "Anna Marie" character from DAZ: although DAZ gave full permission to use the character for projects, the enclosed license was very restrictive due to the fact that the character was based on a real person. On the one hand, the product was promoted as "official licensed", so buyers got the actual product endorsed by the original. On the other hand, that same license restricted its use. Another example would be if I got a license to make and sell digital models of Ferrari cars. The license would allow me to sell the models (with all of the Ferrari logos and graphics) and it would allow people to use my product in their projects. But, would the artist have to contact Ferrari if he wanted to use my official digital model in his commercial projects? Or is it better to make a "Ferrari-like" car? The model wouldn't have the official logos, but it wouldn't have the possibly-restrictive license either. So, the issue is this: is it worth the effort to make free items (or try to obtain licenses to sell products) of real-world objects if people can't use them for commercial projects. Or is this even an issue? Do the majority of Poser users use products for their own "hobby" artwork or in their commercial projects? Is there even a market for officially licensed products (scale models, textures with logos, etc)? Or is this issue the real reason why we're not seeing more "officially licensed" products in the Poser world? After all, if we think of Poser as a "virtual action figure", the possibilities for "product placement" are almost limitless. --John

Or is this issue the real reason why we're not seeing more "officially licensed" products in the Poser world? Probably because of the costs involved in licensing them. And with some who are already complaining that Poser items are too pricey, anything that drives prices up won't be very popular.

Quote "Another example would be if I got a license to make and sell digital models of Ferrari cars. The license would allow me to sell the models (with all of the Ferrari logos and graphics) and it would allow people to use my product in their projects. But, would the artist have to contact Ferrari if he wanted to use my official digital model in his commercial projects?" YES :( I won't buy anything that remotely resembles a "real" life item(logos or not)..been down that road before & got screwed. Oh, FYI, when I asked permission from the manu. to use commerically the answer was NO! This was w/out the logos...just a identical resemblence. Now for pure hobbyiests that have no intention of ever going commerical, then who cares.

Most companies will not provide a "Blanket Usage" license for anything that represents their brand. If they do then they lose total control of how their branded product is represented to the public. Branding is a huge deal to most companies and they very rarely will give permission to use it without them knowing and seeing how it will be used. Clint

"Oh, FYI, when I asked permission from the manu. to use commerically the answer was NO! This was w/out the logos...just a identical resemblence."

IMO It was your mistake in asking. Just cuz they say you can't doesn't really mean anything at all legally. Though the fact that you did ask and they said no would probably hurt you if they did decide to sue.

I'll use something that physically resembles something as long as it isn't an exact copy. and It'll be my godamn legal right to do so. Of course I am refering to real world objects and not purely made up objects such as say, an X-wing figher which IMO deserves greater protection than something one might see every day on the street.

As for logos, I spent the better part of a day removing the trademarks off the Daz Nova, which I will be using in a commercial project. :p

Corporate apoligists can kiss my ass BTW. Another good example of why it is dumb to ask, is the world of PC game mods. There are many many PC game mods based on copyrighted properties, they are generally left alone, but the makers of a quake 3 mod based on Dragonball Z made the rather retarded choice of asking the US Licensee Funimation productions (who was making their own DBZ games) for permission. The mod (which was highly anticipated) was utterly destroyed after many months of development. I think US companies should take a more relaxed view towards copyrighyt, In Japan, Parody comics (Doujinshi)which are often downright pornographic are allowed to be sold based on copyrighted properties provided that they have a limited press run. Lighten up already!

Message edited on: 08/02/2005 17:19

Quote"IMO It was your mistake in asking. Just cuz they say you can't doesn't really mean anything at all legally. Though the fact that you did ask and they said no would probably hurt you if they did decide to sue." Berserga....I am NOT taking any chances on getting sued. I will follow the law. I prefer to able to sleep at night & not loose my shirt/credability over such issues. My choice :)

Probably because of the costs involved in licensing them. And with some who are already complaining that Poser items are too pricey, anything that drives prices up won't be very popular. For now, let's assume that any licensing would be a reasonable cost and the products would still be affordable. Think about plastic models: a model-making company (such as AMT/ ERTL) gets a license to make Lockheed-Martin's aircraft and then sells their products for under $10.00. Of course, the plastic model doesn't have all of the distribution and usage issues that a digital model would have. --John

Berserga, I think you are missing the point if Intellectual Property. This is a huge market for corporate lawyers in today's world. It is a strange time we live in. On one side, we have all the "Open Sourcers" as I like to refer to them. On the other side are the people making money. I cannot recall what the figures are for the cost of "branding" but if I am correct, it is in the millions for big name brands. If you spent millions on your particular brand, you would want to protect it too. Keep in mind, these companies are probably not saying no just to be miserly jerks. Think about it, someone builds a model, perfect to scale of a Ferrari. I turn around and take that model, then a model of say, a Porche, also to scale, and make a comic strip. First off, I make the Porsche win a race between the two by a quarter mile. Then, I make the Ferrari wrap around a tree, with a comment about it's ability to handle. How does this make a Ferrari look? Granted, this is a silly example, but I think it illustrates a good point. Try making a comic showing someone choking on a piece of bone inside a Big Mac, complete with the golden arches in the backdrop. Think if it gets around the net you won't have some quite unfriendly lawyers knocking on your front door? On your point that US companies should relax their take on copyright, do you think companies enjoy suing other companies? It costs good money to sue, money that companies would rather spend on R&D, or marketing. However, these are the same companies that are sued when some idiot spills a cup of hot coffee in their lap, or sues because there wasn't a warning label on the packaging that said "Eating 6 double cheeseburgers a week from our establishment will cause you to have a fat @$$." The whole buisness of suing begins with the common man trying to make a quick buck with little effort. I cannot blame a company, in the business of making money, to just roll over and allow anyone to use their logos, brands, trademarks, etc. in any way they please. Now going back to the Open Sourcer movement, we have many people who just feel everything should be free to use as they see fit. Now in theory, I think Open Source is great. We get many great things from this methodolgy. Examples like Linux, and Wings come to mind. (I don't necessarily mean Open Source as the literal open source. I am speaking of the mindset that you can build a quality product without the need for it to be costly.) The issue gets convulted on the general public though. You begin to have people who like to abuse the system. Is MP3 format bad, in and of itself? No. It is actually a really great format. It can be used to compress the large share of your audio collection in an easy to carry package. However, MP3s are abused by the public, who seem to believe it is okay that they can steal music "because music should be free." Yes I am generalizing, but to make a point. To further illustrate, I will ask, did you buy your copy of Poser? If so, you spent a nice chunk of change for it. Now how about the guy down the street from you who just visited some russian cracker site and got it for free? Is that fair? Should we ignore that, since hey, just because it's intellectual property, it shouldn't be kept from me just because I don't want to pay. I have probably ranted on for far too long now. I have also probably violated TOS in more than one way, so I will just wrap this up. I just hope you think about the point I am trying to make. Granted, I cannot understand how we have allowed our society to graduate more lawyers than doctors over the past couple of years, but this is the state of affairs in contemporary America. Whether this is right or wrong is for scholars of the future to decide.

Look at this way....take the reality shows for example...if someone wears a T-shirt with McDonalds on it, if Mcdonalds doesn't like the product placement it gets blurred out. Of course with the plastic models the REAL manu. is probably getting a cut of the sales & most people use those models for collections or toys, not advertising etc. Most advertising companies have paid huge $$$ to use those models for that purpose.

Plus, the plastic models have a known quantity, quality, and purpose. It's a lot different when it's digital ... you never know what purpose it will be used for. So there is less ability to control it.

Copying real life objects can be very risky. There are a lot of companies who are very protective of their designs. Car manufacturers, for example, are notorious for slapping huge restrictions on the use of things - other than their own products - which resemble their "distinctive likeness". Guitar makers are constantly suing each other for copying designs. PRS and Gibson are at each other's throats at the moment over the design of the Gibson Les Paul and the PRS Singlecut. Fender and Gibson have registered their headstock shapes, and Gibson managed to stop Tokai importing their Love Rock model to the USA because it's a replica (and a damn good one) of the 1957 Les Paul Standard. Fender throws a fit every time another manufacturer refers to a "Strat". So, things ain't so cut and dried as you might think. Bet you there's some gimlet eyed corporate bod studying anything they can get their hands on. To quote a line from a comic book, "Everything belongs to somebody". Kinda funny at the time but all too sadly true.

"Even though I may give permission for people to use the models in their images, permission is needed from LucasFilm to use the vehicles in a commercial project." Hoag, just to clear up any misconceptions here: 1. We need LucasFilm's and/or LucasArts' permission to distribute (free or for sale) any of their trademarked or copyrighted items 2. We need LucasFilm's and/or LucasArts' permission to post public images using any of their trademarked or copyrighted items We can't use the fact that they haven't yet sued us (or sent us a cease-and-desist letter) as evidence that distribution is legal or allowed in any way. The reason they haven't sued us is that we're too low under the radar, beneath notice as it were, and they have much bigger fish to fry. They tolerate fan art and fan activities because they know that exercising their rights in that regard is not worth the time and money it would require. Going after bootleg CDs, DVDs, merchandise et al. (usually emanating from PRC) is more than enough work for their legal department.

"We can't use the fact that they haven't yet sued us (or sent us a cease-and-desist letter) as evidence that distribution is legal or allowed in any way. The reason they haven't sued us is that we're too low under the radar, beneath notice as it were, and they have much bigger fish to fry."<< Companies have already intervened into Poser content, first case being years ago. It happens. Which is why people should be careful with copyright. And if you are selling content outright oppose to brokering, still be careful. Most contracts assign liability damages resulting from lawsuits back to the creator. Realism catches more attention than something like the Sims. The larger 3D world is very aware and very interested in what happens in Poserdom. We are a successful content market. I was very suprised last year to find out the people at maxis know exactly who I am. Many 3d insudtries watch Poser content. You think it is coicidence that some vedio game art look like familiar Poser content. Point being, we are under noone's radar. Quite the opposite actually.

As a buyer, I would rather buy a product that I feel sure is legal. If the readme has restrictions then I abide by those restrictions to the best of my ability. Nobody has answered the question. Big name sites host these products. Big enough fish. It's just a matter of time.

{Bookmark}

Attached Link: http://www.casp.net/survival.html

I agree with berserga there seems to be far too many copyright restrictions in place, now.

Message edited on: 08/02/2005 22:40

Well, tell me what is the good way I draw a comic to sell it. I use in it DAZ3D models, props, clothes. Not all, because I use a lot of freebies, but some of them have the "non commercial use". Well. They suppose that I buy a model only for hobby and not for commercial use? I need to ask ALL THE DESIGNERS??? "Hi. Im drawing a comic with you model xxx and I need your permission" (I can use more than 100 different elements... contact I with 100 designers???) ... or I shout my face and draw ;)

It's not much different a question compared to an author who writes a story about a character getting into a certain brand of car, oh and maybe squishing someone with it. Love esther

copyright is a thorny issue, fraught with legal dangers. An example would be if I were to use a copyrighted image in the background of a piece, without permission of the owner, I would have to have it removed if there was any hint of commercial future. In the movie industry, you have to purchase E and O insurance (Errors and Ommisions) to cover yourself in the event that there's a Budwieser logo on the wall of the bar that you are shooting in. don't hope that "No one will notice", because you will get rolled, probably by someone whom you least expect. Someone's got a grudge against you, this is a good way to get back. Another aspect is that if we start using copyrtighted items in our work, this would then give corporations just cause to use our works, or a pastiche of those works in their corporate campaigns without us seeing a dime. Finally, copyright tends to be such a fluid beast, that is only supported from the courts of your particular country. In many cases, something from one country is easily "translated" by some one else in a different country, and considered as an original in that area. "All In The Family" was a direct copy of a British show (starring Sidney James), with nothing more than a dialect change. All I can say is that we have to watch our backs, and support each other, because we are not going to get any sympathy from the corporations.

Casette- No, you don't need permission from 100 artists to use their products in your artwork- the product's license usually allows for commercial projects. However, an issue is raised when you use an "officially licensed" product. For example, if you use DAZ's "Anna Marie" character and that character is used in a "non-favorable light" (character gets shot or killed or is placed in an 'adult' situation), then the licensor may say that your image is not in the spirit of the license and ask you to stop your artwork. As for TV-show copyrights, are you really saying that shows like All in the Family, Coupling, and The Office were made without permission from the British companies (probably the BBC)? Even if the BBC could not file a lawsuit (which they probably could), I would think that networks would want to keep each other happy. That way, the BBC would be free to "translate" an NBC show (and vice versa) without any complaints. --John

All in the family was actually a direct copy of `til death us do part, warren mitchell was alf garnett that character was called archie bunker in all in the family. The star wars models mentioned earlier are fairly safe to make and use in non commercial projects, they have been officially allowed to be used but not for items for sale.

I copy stuff like trees, clouds, and nature things for rendering. God has not sued me yet :o) I say the best thing to do is just get creative and make your own ideas happen. There is no rule that says Star Wars is the best thing to ever happen :o) Another thing is if it's supposedly free stuff and says for non-commercial use only..pass it on by for something that can be used both ways..After all that sort of dampens the whole free theory anyhow, yes?

The reason I make free stuff for non commercial use is that I dont like the idea of someone making money out of something that I didnt make money out of, but it is negotiable, if someone wanted to use a free item I made for a commercial project, they could contact me and discuss it.

I know for a fact that The Office was sold by the BBC to an american network. I've never seen it, but I was reading an article about in the Herald Tribune the other day. Anyway, the BBC regularly sell a large percentage of their sitcoms and comedies to america for 'makeovers'. Yes, Archie Bunker was Alf Garnett (a very toned-down version) of Till Death Us Do Part. The one I think is the weirdest of all is Sanford and Son. It was the american version of Steptoe and Son, except they were black. mac

We're kind-of, sort-of drifting off topic a little bit... :) The question still remains: if you saw a licensed product in the marketplace, would you purchase it, even knowing full well that the licensor controlled the usage? Or would the words "officially licensed product" convince you to buy it, since the product has been approved by the licensor and contains the company's actual logos and graphics? Again, as an example, suppose an official Ferrari Testarosa was for sale in the Marketplace for $5.00. The quality of the model is excellent and the price is low. Would you buy it, since the products contains all of the Ferrari logos and is a licensed product? Or would you not buy it, knowing that Ferrari may (or may not) allow you (the purchaser) to use the model in certain situations. --John

The movies exagerate scenes with cars all the time. In one movie a car like rolled down a small embankment into a tree and exploded. If a real car did that they'd recall it. I watch movies all the time with guns that never run out of ammo and machine guns that can't hit anything. All these films are fiction much like most of the renders and nobody cares and nobody sues. The movie makers were not trying to make the car look dangerous or the guns look more deadly or not as deadly as they really are. Just making a movie people want to see. The hero had to escape some how and the ball of flame that burst from the automobile made the crash more exciting. There is reality and fiction in moving pictures and still pictures. Maybe the art just needs to be labeled either as a depiction of an actual event or fiction so nobody gets upset

I would be put off buying something if ferrari or any other company could say you can`t use that in your render or that you would have to pay them to use the product.

Your just one person, how many others live in the world. How many people can model their own ferrari?

This seems to revolve around Ferrari, John. Did you contact Ferrari about what their guidlines are? There are lots of copyrighted things for sale also that contain the "Royalty Free" clause. There will always be a grey line about this unless you go directly to the source, and get your answers there. You might also go ahead, make your demo, and let them review it before release to the general public. Most vendors are always happy to let people glorify their products, however Ferrari may not be real fond of you letting their cars explode like a Pinto :o)

While I'm at it suppose we just do birds and trees and things like that. How boring that would get after a while. There is nothing wrong with "Star Wars" stuff if that's what you like. It seems you don't like rules. Well, the world is full of them and they are there to protect us in most cases. My name is not John

Dogor, I was just saying that I wouldnt want to buy a ferrari and then have to pay more money to actually use it. I wasnt talking for anyone else, it was just my opinion.

Message edited on: 08/03/2005 20:46

Quote - For example, I like to make Star Wars vehicles and I think people like to download them. Even though I may give permission for people to use the models in their images, permission is needed from LucasFilm to use the vehicles in a commercial project.

Is that even legal to do? Wouldn't you need permission from the Lucas Estate in order to even create and offer the resulting image/item for download? Message edited on: 08/03/2005 20:57

I was just saying that others might want too and without the manufacturers aproval their is only "Bootleg"or at best questionable imitations. The question here is do people want legitamate licensed models for Poser that although they come with restrictions/rules they are One Hundred percent legal and the buyer knows exactly where they stand with the product when and after they buy it, if they buy it. When someone buys a questinable imatation it does not give them any more permission to use it in a comercial render because the manufacturer is still out there some place. Sorry you feel that way

Actually Dogor I was replying to JHoagland aka John (correct me if I am wrong, but is this not his thread?) I was saying that people would be surprised how many big companines will let you do things if you just ask them. Some will even go as far as giving you more material to work with. If they do not, you move on to something else. This is hardly a lack of respect or dislike of rules, or at least what I am re-reading what I said reflects that. I even mention artists here at my site that I have purchased their products from. This is nothing they demand, but I do anyways. This is called common courtesy, and appreciation of their efforts. Ths is the same courtesy I would give any artist. If I needed something from xantor for post production, I would abide by his terms (rules) as well. My "There is no rule that says Star Wars is the best thing to ever happen" is stating that there are other things people can do. People can build a better mousetrap sometimes, and avoid being accused of riding the coat tails of another product's success. I am sure most have disliked a movie etc, because we thought it copied another movie too much. As for your " birds and trees" comment. This was simply stating that there are some things in the world still free to use. Not many, but a few, and I do render other things as well :0) but I will give you that one, it would be rather boring. I am simply here to give my opinions, and sometimes I use my own experiences as a base. I am not here to cast stones, or make unfounded accusations. I hope this forum is just about relaying an opinion, and not the Springer show :o)

Another products success can be a golden opertunity. People do it all the time. Sorry if I offended you radstorm. You are right. This is John's not mine, but you say things that sound like jabs and pokes.

When it comes to riding the coat tails of another products success, does that include all the people that make textures and morphs for M3 and V3?

No offense taken, Dogor I have both, and some excellent "add-ons" from here for them, and the one I have got from here is quality (Ember) :0) Daz sells M3 & V3 to the public, but even they have guidlines you must adhere to. George Lucas sells the "privilege" of just looking. He doesn't throw in an x-wing fighter at the theater for you to take home and re-market :o) So I would say Daz and Lucas offer something similar as far as entertainment, but both with their own set of rules. Look at each artist's item around here. They always mention what it is based upon i/e V3, M3, etc. They don't just throw something out there and say "this is all mine" no they mention "you must have the Daz V3 base, etc to use this prop" and I am sure Daz makes a few sales from that as well. Generalization is never intended to be a personal issue. Unless one turns it into such. If you ever seen the movie History Of The World Part 1, you might remember them telling about the artist being invented, and not long after the art critic L "Jabs and pokes" are what helps make change sometimes. If not, we would all be back to your "birds and trees" quote..boring :o) I am just an end product user, and not an artist here. I mostly come here to shop for medieval props, etc. Which is what I am off to do now. You should start one of those controversy shows on TV, you're good at it L To all else I can just say buyer beware. There are lots of sue happy people out there, and the web is a great place for them to feed. Just like politics and religeon, copyright issues have a lot of shaded areas as well, so always get permission first. If you get approved straight from the source, then the sky is the limit :o) This is my last post here..happy rendering

This seems to revolve around Ferrari, John. Did you contact Ferrari about what their guidlines are? Nope- I'm using Ferrari as an example since they are not on my list of companies to contact. I wouldn't want to give away any of my new product ideas. :) You're right, though- I should just contact the companies and see what they say. They may be happy for the extra advertising... maybe my product will cause people to buy the real thing! Ihe issue I'm still worried about is this: what happens if I spend weeks working on the product, making it a perfectly scaled replica? The shape is perfect and the textures and graphics are perfect. I then upload it to the Marketplace and no one buys it because they're afraid that the licensing company may complain about the images. --John

You would be better to get permission to use the shape AND for others to use it in renders etc, before beginning making a copyrighted product. If you cant get full permission then just dont make the thing. That seems to be the most logical way to go about it.