I wonder what itesm can be sold via online stores, I think this is issue of copyright. If I made a new figure, with new obj, new cr2 new texture, the obj is a re-work from default or daz3d, can we sell it, or do we need mover to encode ? What's the limit ? I have some items to sell in this online store. I just scare of selling somethings not suitable for this.

some body textures are rework or modified from happyworldland or other artists in this site, I think it is not for sale, right ? TIA for your expla-nation.

Tim & Staale have encouraged the community to embellish and redistribute their work for FREE, but I've never heard their policy on modifying and then SELLING their works. IMHO, (and only MHO) That would seem a bit too cheeky. Of course it is up to the original author, but this is a tough issue for which to draw an ethical "line in the sand". For instance, one might do something as insignificant as changing the nail color on one of their maps and then try to sell the whole image as a new work. At the other extreme, most map makers often keep things like the inner mouth, tounge, or teeth textures that came with the original figure, yet the rest of the image may be completely new.

The safest bet is to stick to selling your own original work. I never sell any derivitive works or include anything by anyone else in my products. All my products were created 100% by me. That way I know I cannot possibly upset anyone (or their solicitors).

If you re-work someone elses OBJ, you can't redistribute the OBJ, and you can only use Mover with FREE items. You might be able to work out a deal with Maz for commercial use of Mover.

Casamerica or anyone else. I got a stupid question about "derivative" works. I understand you can't sell them but what about make/use or give them away without the original creators permission? Also at what point does an "article" become derivative? Say if an object is in one format and you convert it to another, is that derivate? Or is it considered the same as the original. I've been wanting to ask this question for a while, but have been real hesitant because questions of these natures alway seem to start a "fight". I'm realitivly new at all this and don't want to get yelled at either way. :-)

Things sold from morphed characters made by Zygote in the form of cr2's are acceptable items in the store, since you are not redistributing the original Zygote/Daz3d geometry. Zygote/Daz3d has allowed this level of resale/redistribution of derivative works. Other artists however do not, so you must check with each creator individually on things you might wish to create derivative works of, or redistribute in whole or in part. Tim Laubach is very good about allowing his textures to be redistributed, but a nice note to him would not hurt a thing. He has even been wonderful enough to allow me to heavily (and I do mean heavily) modify one of his lovely textures and resell it with Delilah. Moonbiter, changing formats is just a format change, it is still the artists copyrighted work you are mucking in, and you are in fact making a derivative with the format change. Copyright is very specific, it allows artists to control distribution, copies, redistribution, usage restrictions, almost all control over their own work. Some choose to relax their control and give away control of their own choice, others do not. It all depends on the specific artist or company. Work sold in this store is sold as 3d Clipart. That means you can render to your hearts content, and sell or do anything you wish to with those renders. You can even make custom modifications to the work to make it suit your purposes better, such as change haircolor, add new clothing, adjust the texture to your liking, morph till the cows come home... on and on. But the second you take the original product, morphs, geometry, texture, bumpmaps, transparency maps, props, hair, whatever... and find a way to circumvent that artist's copyright, (his right to control it totally in it's original form and make a living off his work) and you go redistribute it without his knowledge or consent, you are in shady grounds and apt to be having to do some 'splainin.

OK, I got the point, just two more issues : 1. what if I use the default geometry in Poser and make some simplfied version of it, say in LW, there is a lossQUmm or something which truns a hi-poly to lower-poly, I use it to modufy. 2. I use the Creature Creator as a base form then I apply a smooth operation that turns it into HI resolution version, I can use more vertices to recreate a more complex form. My assuption here is that since most bi-ped are much that same, I need a regular model as a base form, then I can cre-create and make it a new one, a whole bew one. Like I use boolean to cur whole in a conforming dress and make it a striking sexy dress. Are these allowed spcifically ?

I agree on the texture issue, a work of ones own is always better. Just have no picture of the private part fur :P you know what I mean. Some textures are seemingly using photo for this part, even the facial. I like to paint on the photo to add shade and style on the face.

here is something I came up with, I have remapped some OBj to suit the purpose in Deep Paint 3D, I remapped the UVMap in UVMapper and save it a different name. This OBJ then is only suitable for using in DP3D. if I sell the textures I make in DP3D, uses can't use it if he/she does not own the remapped OBJ I made, I assume this can be solved via Mover ?

In regards to CreatureCreator (funny how this has popped up a few times in the last couple of weeks!) You cannot sell or re-distribute the original CC files or geometry. Anything you create from CC and port to LW and MODIFY from LW is yours to do with as you please.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?Form.ShowMessage=118417&Form.sess_id=109465&Form.sess_key=96

If Mobius can sell a 3d version of Hajime Sorayama's artwork, can I sell 3d versions of Walt Disney's work? How about Dave selling clothing from the Andromeda TV series?Maybe George wouldn't mind me selling some Star Wars stuff... After the mess with the Alien figure you'd think someone would pay attention to THE LAW. It's sadly amusing that a warez request will get you banned quicker than you can blink but Mobius can steal from a Japanese artist for almost a year.I guess warez don't turn a buck for Renderosity. Is it really necessary to have "DON'T STEAL" as a rule for uploading to the store?Maybe so, or at least have someone who might recognize something that could induce litigation. And if you really, really can't come up with an original idea, PLEASE DON'T name it after whatever you were stealing it from...

Hmm with stuff like the post above is it any wonder some people don't ask questions? :-) Anyway I'll be honest I'm still kinda confused. When somebody makes something publically available can they dictate how I use it? Even if it is different then how they intended it to be used? Here is what got me going on all this: recently I came across Joelegecko's tutorial on converting halflife weapons for use in poser. I converted some weapons from a mod for my own use in poser (took like two days). I thought they looked good enough to share with the community. But before I uploaded them I thought I should write to the people who "created the mod" and ask if it was okay. So I sent a letter explaining what I had done and that I wanted to share them with all credit to them and not for commercial use... and all that. The letter I got back and as I understand it tells me not only that I may not "share them" but that I may not use them either. From what I understand now and then is that they have that right to not allow me to share them, but its the use thing that I am wondering about. Like I said I'm new to all this and I a certainly don't want to piss anyone off or violate copyright law, which is why I am asking rather than doing. So any insight is appreciated. If anyone would rather email me than Yell :) at me here my email. is moonbiter@thelostlands.com Thanks.

These types of posts are common but they usually fall into two types of questions. 1) What is the right thing to do? 2) What can I get away with? If you didn't make it COMPLETELY, ABSOLUTELY, & ENTIRELY from scratch you cannot sell it. Period. No if's, and's, or but's. People have been fired from jobs, sued, had their computers taken by the courts, banned from online use, etc. You never know how far someone will go to stop you. Daz questions-ask Daz Freestuff questions-ask the artist If you cannot find the artist-the answer is NO Unless you have a written and signed letter in yout hands, don't use anything commercially. EXAMPLE: Let's say you email me asking to use my models for your projects. I email you and say yes. You then sell the product here on Renderosity. Legally I could lie and sue both you and the owners of Renderosity for consequensuel damages. Now, you say to the judge, "he gave me permission." My lawyer says, "No he didn't. Prove it. Show the court the signed letter. You say, "Here is the email" My layer then goes into 10 minutes of explaining how emails can be falsified and not valid proof in a court of law. The judge says, "The court finds in favor of Mr. Kisiel" Now you did nothing wrong, but I could easily get away with it. This issue isn't really complicated. It is good to ask but trying to find loop holes to use materials to make something you can't make yourself can lead to trouble. I don't say this to be mean or rude, but this is very hazzardous territory. Popel don't have to control other people's use of files, lawyers and courts do it for them.

Popel =People. :) I really need to learn to ytpe. :)

skimming thru all these posts, I thank you heartily for your opinion. NOW I wonder if it is legal to use any figures, textures, props if modified from the orginal, not others, but from the programs or Daz3d. I used to turns a default cat.obj into a tiger.obj based on the geometry's obj in the program. I did not create this from the scrtach, but simply reworked to chanage the entity as most canine are almost the same, quadped, cat face, paws.. I recreated the tiger in setup rom of ppp with cat figure as bone structure. So it is still not allowed to sell ? If I create one from geometrical polygon, subdiv, then... I think I steal the shape of the cat, the cat should suit me because the copyright of DNA is from the Creator of cato. Turning a A into B, if the vertice coordinates are different or the morphing make drastic change , compared to the original obj in the Geometry folder, then I can not use it for product purpose ? This is the most annoying issue I concern for years. I also succeed to turn a p4 femme into male figure , and p4 man into femme, these are not allowed for sales ? Well, if this is the case, I should abandon to make custom figures for biz. This is not stealing from others, I take it for granted as a template as biped or quadrped have their normal shapes. Don't someone make a head based on the background image of head, so this is a stealing as the head was used for this purpose ? Confused and desperated me:( cheers

I used to write a book and sold very and reprinted, another publisher took my book and modified a bit then published a new one and sold well too, I was furiuos but had nothing protective to do as it was too troublesome to argue. Originanlly I learnt from textbooks or experience or manual ( if a software), then I wrote the book. I guess I was also stealing as the knowledge were not mine, I was bone uneducated and unknowledged, I l grow and learn and make new one. What is the definition of new one ?

Poserpro, there are things for sale in the store with modified geometry files, being transported via Maz's Mover utility. Each of these items were allowed to be sold after contacting Maz. If all you have done is altered figures through morph targets, this sort of character can be transported and sold even easier, through selling the PZ3 file, or the cr2 file saved out into your character library. This is not that confusing or that hard. Do not let others discourage you so. Please contact Tammy Choate to discuss sales of your items, you can reach her at tammy@bondware.com. Most things you see being sold in that store are based off Daz3d/Zygote creations first, then modified heavily in other applications such as 3d Studio Max, then brought back in in the form of morph targets, and tidied up into cr2's and sold just fine, and quite legally thus far, with Daz3d allowing it. The day they stop allowing it is a bridge we will all cross when it comes, but till then you can indeed sell your work.

mehndi, you have my attention:0, your point is indeed helpful, considering not all artists can create very talented work from the scratch, I am quite good at modifying the base model, and make it look ulter different from the base( original(, I don't mean to steal or take advantage of others. I do hope the online store will helps us monitor which items to place in the virtual Poser shelves so that we don't bleach any laws whatsoever. My works are most based on the modified version of the base geometry foun din the geometry folder of Poser, few using Daz3D's. cheers

stupid me, but what's the email for MAz( creator or Mover), I can't find it in the menu>help. And who is Tammy Choate, is he the one who helps us censor the items to be sold online in the online sotre upper right of this page ? Sorry if I am being too noisy and sissy:P BTW, I assume we have to contact daz3d for any promising items to sell anywhere online before we actually do so ?

Go here to submit your items for evaluation for use in the store: http://www.renderosity.com/softgood.ez?Upload=Yes To contact Maz, go to the Members area which is a link up near the top on the right hand menu, and search for Maz. You can send him email via that form in there, the email message form. I do not know his email address handily or I would tell you. I sell stuff, and I have never yet contacted Daz3d :) I might someday, if I wished to sell through them... they too run a brokerage for items same as here. Don't stress so much over it all, you are not going to be cursed out or anything if you don't do everything just right while learning how to go about this, contact Tammy, and she can help advise you on how to go about things. Ok?

Thanks Mehndi You have been very helpful on this, I thank you again for your kindness. Wow, Tammy is a lady, I thought a man.

Perhaps we need legal documentation that we can all read so we all fully understand the limitations on what is a legal marketable item. I've even spoken with a Copyright Lawyer about artwork and made his head spin with questions. It is very important that we know all the do's and don't and what to do if you notice that someone breaks the rules.

Excuse me, my jacket was only based off what I saw on TV. I did not go to any great lengths to make it exactly like it down to the minute detail. If I had then the buckles and the collar would be completely different. Dave

ironically I worked as a clerk in an Intellectuial Properties Office( namely, Patent, TM and very few on Copyright) for five years, I still have no exact idea what is the right and limitation to use or not to use the original works, particularly it is the geometry OBJ in Poser programs. In order to conform properly and fit seamlessly, I need to use the original OBj to make a "new" one. And as PPP is out, I need the original figure to recreate a "new" one. I can use all my creations for my on purpose, but I think some of them might intetest others in the community. Maybe I will place for free stuff:)

poserpro, your getting confused between Tammy and Timmy, two different people here, although Timmy actually goes by Tim, (sorry). Mehndi is right, having worked in the store I too KNOW a lot of characters are certainly based on Daz/Zygote originalities. Very few, (in comparison to the membership base number on the forums), have the extreme talent of creating from scratch such as Anton does, although the numbers have certainly increased over time as more folks have learned and developed their skills. It IS a long process, (learning and creating), and probably why we do not get oodles of new stuff weekly even from Daz, quality takes time, even alterations of originals. Frankly speaking I am not so sure the ARTWORK we create using all these creations takes half as long as the making of all this stuff we use does, I guess in both realities it depends on the depth of the picture and/or the item in question ;-)

Please rectify this for me once and for all, since said figure was created by you. If someone buys your dragonV2 and uses it in a rendering...that is legal correct? Because you bought the "usage license?" :::shrugs::: It's really been bothering me because I do NOT want to take anything from anyone or, get screwed up the arse because of something trivial either. (general statement, not meaning you)

"Excuse me, my jacket was only based off what I saw on TV. I did not go to any great lengths to make it exactly like it down to the minute detail. If I had then the buckles and the collar would be completely different." I don't think that would hold up in court, not even with O.J.'s jury. It's probably worth it for the Renderosity siteowners to sit down with a lawyer and get a better idea of what can and cannot be sold in the store.I think Director has a good idea about the page on Copyright Law.A greater awareness on everyones part will help to avoid any legal problems, even though the items are screened no one can recognize every copyrighted item.

Just HOW MANY legal problems have there been?? I mean, your making it sound like there have been a TON of problems here?? Have there?? If so, my apologies, if not, then why all the alarm? I am sure the oddball mistakes do happen. Look at the things all over in retail land, from books to films to strawberry jam to almost everything and then compare. Legality situations happen all the time; why we have lawyers. Have there REALLY been a whole LOT of problems here in comparison? I realize it's nice to AVOID disaster, or even a lot of potential problems, but I don't see this, or did I miss something? Do we panic now and throw away our easels and our chisels?? Throw in the towel, the end is near! Sometimes we can overdo something to the point where everyone will be too afraid to even create or render and then where will we all be as artists or even as a forum?? Be wise, but not silly ;-)

I accept the apologies and forgive the ignorance... ;}

This points to yet another unpleasantness of having an online store in the midst of what is otherwise an amateur enthusiast's web meeting place. As shown in the above thread, ignorance of copyright and trade mark laws is profound amongst the membership. They are blissfully unaware in the main. If copyright and trade marked items find their way into the store, then the whole place is put at risk.

You know, I really don't think anyone here is giving a whole lotta folks enough credit? Are we a bunch of "doorknobs"? I mean, c'mon?? Yeah, sure, we NEED to respect the work of others. No one should just take stuff and copy or sell it as their own, that's just common sense, if it isn't then those that do THIS deserve what they get! But are we putting this WHOLE sight, and possibly all the sights in the same picture, are we all dumb clucks before we even lay any eggs?? HOW LONG have we now been around as forums? HOW LONG have these stores existed?? I realize we get new members, perhaps they should be aware of certain guidlines, but I would HOPE that MOST folks have enough common courtesy and more than enough sense to know enough not to have to wear a pacifier and a bib here??!! Who is being ignorant throwing all us eggs in the SAME basket? This is like putting a cast on a leg that is not broken yet. Fine, have a medical centre, have a nurse, even have a Doctor but don't start treating us all like patients already when we are not yet sick! Avoiding a disease is fine as long as the cure is not worse than the disease itself. There is NO reason to SCARE artists into NOT creating for fear of stepping on toes around every corner. That's just not how it is. Most people, especially those with similar interests, DO respect one another and DO understand common sense rules without planting unfounded fears into their heads. Yes, your right, a lot of NEW, RAW from scratch material made by anyone other than DAZ MUST be carefully researched as to not infringe on the creators original wishes for their work, but on the whole, a lot of materials are based on the original DAZ geometry but altered as per specified allowances, enough to be sold as CR2's or with "mover" or whatever. If that were not the case we may as well close shop and re-open a fruit stand instead. If it is the case of creating a character such as a Star Wars figure, yes, it should be made certain that PERMISSION was given or not accepted to be sold UNLESS there is a certainty of enough VARIANCE from the original, (again, research), that there would be no problem. Of course your not gonna be able to sell a Duck and call it Donald Duck, Disney would have you for breakfast, and it better not look the same unless Disney said, "sure, go ahead", but that don't mean you can't create a DUCK and sell it, even one wearing a sailor suit. Use you noggins. I remember, (although I have yet to actually SELL something myself), always being AFRAID to even go NEAR a store with the prospect of ever SELLING something, thinking I HAD to learn to CREATE FROM SCRATCH, from bottom up, before I could possibly DO this. As it is, that is NOT the case, or at least half of the stores would be vacant. Be wary, not everything is DAZ material, know your stuff. And if it IS based on DAZ material, do your research before thinking about that "for sale" sign. You have a LOT of opportunity but you also have to know the basic facts before becoming a vendor, and being afraid is not one of those facts.

When it comes to copyrights law there are several "grey areas." If copyrights were totally black and white there would be no need for copyright lawyers. So calling someone an idiot or chosen ignorance because they may not understand a certain area is one severely haughty attitude. I have worked in the music biz for 10 years (off and on) and know most music copyrights inside and out but, there are times when something just doesn't pan out in a concrete fashion. With art such as this it is far worse and much more complicated. "Usage" by laws in this type of art is a vast open field when it comes to interpretation. So most of the questions here were not stupid.

Questions are never "stupid", fact is it be real nice if more people on a whole "asked" instead of assuming they know everything ;-) I am sure as heck glad I finally had enough sense to ASK instead of just assuming things were a certain way. Fear is something we too many times let happen when we think we will be looked upon as dumb because we think others think we should already know the answers. When it comes to art, (and music, and even other things), we should not feel too afraid to ask. I think there will always be some GREY area when it comes to this, that's why it is a good idea to make sure you try to know what your working with and we should be THANKFUL like crazy that we have sooo many wonderful folks all around ready to help us all they can, that have had some experience with either selling, testing, creating, or even working in these places ;-) We shouldn't be afraid, just as we should not be presumptious that anything is just "okay" either, you really don't know until you actually "experience" something first hand I suppose, and hope you have done all you can NOT to "ruffle" anyone or anything in the process ;-)

Radart wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> But are we putting this WHOLE sight, and possibly all the sights in the same picture, are we all dumb clucks before we even lay any eggs?? <<<<<<<<<<<<< I don't know who you are responding to with your idealistic meanderings Rad, but if it's to my post, then I think you need to remove the rose tinted specs. Get this: Renderosity (Bondware Inc) is brokering store items, and so is as involved in selling them as much as the individual contributors. If Renderosity sells items which are protected by copyright and/or trademark (or uses copyright material to advertise items) without permission and/or a license, then the whole site is in danger from any subsequent legal action. The store does refer to this issue in its uploading guidelines: "By uploading a product using the form below, you are representing that you are the owner of the intellectual property being uploaded or that you have the legal right to sell the intellectual property on behalf of the owner. You agree to indemnify Bondware Inc. in any dispute which may arise regarding products that you sell through this site." My reading of various court actions around the world doesn't lead me to believe that this 'indemnity clause' will protect Renderosity particularly well. The only distinction a court is likely to make between Renderosity and any individual amateur contributor is to treat the individual more leniently. It will most likely regard Renderosity as the responsible professional partner, and any action will be much more severe. Depending on the degree of complaint from any potentially offended party, court action could involve closure of the whole site. Are copyright and trademark owners likely to learn of any potential transgressions of their creative rights? How many enemies does this place have?... Of course, if Renderosity is informed about potentially 'dangerous' items in the store, and chooses to ignore the warning and go on selling; then it rather deserves any action that might follow - both pragmatically and morally.

Looks like we've gotten a bit off the beaten track on your origional question here and there. As a general rule of thumb, if it's not a completely origional work [model, prop, texture, whatever] - get permission in writing from the creator of the source material before offering it for sale. And check the restrictions on use that the authour has place on their items. I'm not certain what the restrictions on the happyworld stuff is, I do know that the last time I checked Traveler's site, he clearly states that there are NO restrictions on the use of his poser morphs. That one is pretty clear. On photographic images and "clip" art for use in commercial projects, get a good search engine and do an exhaustive web search on "royalty free" and "public domian" stock photos and clip art. There are LIBRARIES of the stuff available - those are the main standby of any ad agency and graphics studio in the business. On the royalty free stuff, those are generally available for use for a nominal fee. We may be an amateur enthusiastes site, but we have quite a few professionals, and a lot of people who are going to be professionals in the future here. And it's not that grey in that area either. Once you begin to make money for your art, you're no longer an amateur, you're a pro. Pure and simple. A pro is someone who is paid for their work. The imperative thing is to develop the professionalism to go with your new status. That takes time and experience and study... And I've seen a lot of so-called pros that have never mastered the professionalism end of it.

Don't take it personally PJF, it's NOT directed at YOU, I have much respect for your input; I am only "trying" to help, maybe just not "idealistically correct" way too many times ;-) I just don't want folks to be afraid to "create" for fear of too many things that may not be warranted. I am NOT speaking of making counterfiet Barbie Dolls or duplicates of Jar Jar and selling them and getting George possibly closing the forums, I understand. I also know people should REALIZE that they can't just take whatever they download in freestuff, or even BUY for that matter, and then resell it as there own, or change the clothes or hair and do same. Some things should be left for just ARTwork period, because that is ALL that permission is given for, and many times even that is just for personal useage unless we ASK otherwise and get told different. But a LOT of things created are based, or made, from the tools that are already made available to us in the form of the poser package we start out with. I see a lot of folks making, (and also donating money), they recieve in various ways. Many DO make their own "from scratch" items, but I am sure you TOO know many also "enhance" what is already there to make it something "new" for all of us to enjoy with poser. If by going according to specifications allowed by Zygote/Daz, so many can and DO do this, others should be aware they can too. Talk to someone that knows the rules, and enjoy the possibilties ;-)

I'm not taking it personally, Radart, believe me. It's not a question of personality (luckily for me). It's not a question about 'creating' either. Creating and selling are two completely different things. This thread is about selling, not about creating. I agree, pretty much, with Ironbear. Engaging in activity for gain does make a person a professional, by one of the definitions of the word. But it implies nothing else; nothing competent or noble. The same definition can make a software pirate a professional (and some are). Most of the semantically correct 'professional' contributors to the store are just 'amateurs' looking to make some pocket money from their hobby. They remain 'amateurish' in their approach and understanding. The store actually facilitates this state of affairs. It essentially removes the need for any of the business competence usually associated with the word 'professional'. The problems arise when it comes to the legal aspects. A 'real' professional creative type will be well informed about copyright, trademarks and other legal stuff. An 'amateur hobbyist' most often won't be. A 'real' professional would not (without a license) sell an item based on a design from a trademarked television show, and then use the trademark to promote the product. An 'amateur hobbyist making pocket money from a hobby' will easily blunder into that scenario. They are quite likely to react with bewildered consternation when it is pointed out to them, and fail to see anything wrong with their actions... Likewise, an 'amateur' might use (without permission) a recording of a popular song by a well known artist to promote their product in an advertisement. A 'real' professional never would. If these people are acting on their own, then the consequences are limited to themselves. But if their potentially copyright/trademark violating product or promotional material is uploaded to the store here, then any consequences are likely to affect the whole site.

That was why I added the bit on "Professionalism" to my statement. Being a pro, and developing the attitude and outlook that gives you professionalism are often two different things, ne? Maybe diverting this into a discussion of what makes up professionalism would be productive?

Actually, putting it into the way you have here, I UNDERSTAND! My apologies, I seem to have misguided myself into thinking this was about fearing creating, (for selling), using Daz/Zygote geometry and folks thinking EVERYONE creates from SCRATCH. Yup, your both quite right, the issues you bring up are a valid concern and something to be considered and discussed before they get out of hand....thanks for making it clearer for me, I did jump in rather late, "after it got moved here" and should have read the specifics more "clearly" before adding my own concerns ;-) Ironbear, you LAST sentence is a great idea!

Thanks.... To be honest, as much as I enjoy hanging out in here - poserpro's question would better have been handled by being posted in the store contact forum. That's what it exists for. This is an extremely high traffic forum, but on questions like this it does have a tendency to breed controversy. Nothing against controversy, but it's not always the best thing on a subject, y'know?

Another good point. This kind of "professional" discussion is far too "sensitive" to have to be concerned about "walking on eggshells" in the C&D ;-)

No need to apologise, Rad. This thread is covering all sorts of things, and you have no misguided notions as to what it is about. It just isn't about that exclusively. :-) My first post in this thread was made directly after one by casamerica, which unfortunately is now deleted. It refered to the 'Andromeda Jacket' issue in clear and strong terms, and I was agreeing with it and adding my thoughts. My post does look a little nakedly out of context as things now appear.

I missed that completely, kinda breaks up the puzzle, but again, thanks for clearing it up for me. Should be fascinating what will become of all this? Hopefully it will be a learning experience for everyone concerned.

Well...if one statement I have seen is irrevocably true, then that makes me a professional. I make money (vide: a living) doing what I do. Even professionals miss something sometimes, or just don't quite understand somethings. I consider this type of art and work Very Similar to homebuilding. You may be a professional Homebuilder but, that does not make you a professional Zoning Officer. Yes, it is a part of Homebuiling necessity but, lack of all knowledge about Zoning does not make one an amatuer. Eventual learning will happen...just takes time and sometimes mistakes. Don't bash whoever it is because they didn't understand...explain it to them...if they cop an attitude....SQUASH THEM!!! :::snickers:::

Gack. I hate it when that happens, PJF... makes a statement look real frickin strange when you're referring to something that isn't there any more. Makes it look worse when it inadverdantly makes it look like you're actually replying to the one above, rather than the deleted one. Maybe we should go back to having the "thispost deleted by" displayed in the thread? It did put an end to some of the judicious editing of coments and thread by posters we seem to go through on occassion. snicker Sticks tongue out at DD. Squash them indeed. Who amongst us would do such a callous thing? [He says with wide eyed innocence] Since I suggested the diversion... might as well throw my four cents on the subject in. I'm no longer a working pro in that I no longer work in the graphics field as my primary source of income. I did up untill 1990 or so, both working for companies, and as a freelancer. I'd like to think that I managed to acquire a certain amount of an idea of what constitutes professionalism from the people who mentored me. If I didn't then it's not their fault, they did their best... To me, the difference is one of attitude and conduct. Someone who pursues their craft for money is a professional. To me, professionalism is an attitude - it encompasses being able to conduct oneself in a professional manner, acting with professional courtesy, attention to detail and craftsmanship, and always acting with the realization that ones work represents one in the market place - if my work is sloppy and cut-cornered, people will assume that I am also. Professional courtesy I think is what a lot of this thread has been about, substantatively - how is the proper way to conduct ourselves in regards to the rights, property and creativity of the people we're working with here. We've covered a lot of ground on that, and a number of excellent things have been said on it by PJF, Rad and everyone else. The attitude is a lot more complex, what constitutes conducting oneself in a professional manner. I'd be interested in hearing others thoughts and experiences on this. You can probably tell from my views that I'm old school on the subject - I believe in a lot of parameters that sem to no longer be in fashion in todays business world. More's the pity.

Sometimes, (I am sorry to say), the "old fashioned standards" are too soon forgotten and we replace them with new ones that may well just be a convenience for many that do not wish to conform to or be restrained by certain ettiquettes, (sp?). I would much rather be subject to your rusty old parameters, (if I am correct in my analyses of your general make up), than a lot of the new and improved versions shoved down our throats way too many times in various ways these days. But it would be NICE to compare, and get a clear consensus of what exactly IS important or signifigant to many folks when it comes to professionalism. This is highly interesting and incredibly titillating, (no pun intended) ;-)

My first post in this thread was made directly after one by casamerica, which unfortunately is now deleted. It refered to the 'Andromeda Jacket' issue in clear and strong terms, and I was agreeing with it and adding my thoughts. My post does look a little nakedly out of context as things now appear.<<< PJF, my apologies for the confusion my deletion caused. I deleted my posts since it was becoming apparent that the, as you put it, "...clear and strong terms..." I was sharing was being regarded as "silly", over-reacting and fear-mongering. The first time I ever saw trying to save some friends and good people pain from honest mistakes described as such, but, what the hell. It wasn't the first time on this subject, but, I decided it would be the last. I have the impression that I am one of the few here who has the luxury of constant legal advise handy. I have an attorney on retainer. After more than a few years in writing, film, video and now multimedia work of one kind or another for more years than I wish to disclose, I learned it was needed. It doesn't make me a legal expert, but, it has given me access to answers, information and legal precedence. And that access shows me that there are certain items being offered that are just lawsuits waiting to be filed. The "Andromeda Jacket" was simply the most recent and, perhaps, the easiest since it is, for all practical purposes, an open and shut case based on legal precedence. If you created a model for sale and offered it as "Darth Vader's Tie Fighter," do you really think that if it came to the attention of Mr. Lucas he would just brush it off? Or made a model and sold it as "Babylon 5 Space Station," that AOL-Time-Warner wouldn't be calling? Same thing with the "Andromeda Jacket" and a few other items. Anyway, so much for that. Again, I truly apologize for the confusion my deletion caused. I did not want to cause confusion. But there comes a time when people just do not seem to want to hear the truth that you just say, "Okay, to hell with it then." This was one of those times. Take care and Godspeed.

Ye gads, cas, if you give up speaking the truth, the idiots will take over. The whole western world is dumbing down because the intelligent, educated types are saying 'bollocks to this' and retiring to the hills. Can't say's I blame you though. Take the money and run, etc. ;-) There's a point worth making about trademarked items, and their owners. Although there are some infamous exceptions (Disney, for one) most trademark owners are remarkably tolerant of fans and hobbyists making and exchanging items based on their trademark protected work - so long as it is non-profit. Once people start turning a buck with it, they always clamp down hard - even if it's just a pathetically amateurish operation directly costing them nothing. The reason is precedent. If they are seen to allow anyone, even the most dweebie saddo, to make money off of their trademarked work, it can be used as precedent by larger, more threatening concerns to show that the trademark owner wasn't interested in protecting their trademark. They will not stand for it, any of it. And a whimsical indemnity clause stating that 'if you send me stolen goods, I'm not to blame' isn't going to protect anyone from hard-nosed corporate lawyers.

It would seem that some comprehension is most curiously needed here in some areas; perhaps it's time we played some down to earth connect the dots and came up with a more concise picture here for the valuable legal benefit of us all. And lets not forget to NOT forget our pursuit of knowledge concerning professionalism, (which this may well be a part of).