Attached Link: http://downloads.members.tripod.com/scharmers/elle101.zip

BTW. You are not only redistribute my pony tail but also translash3.jpg too!! Oh,my... :)

And then has the nerve to put THIS on his site!!! Obligatory Legal Stuff: Snakecharmer Software, Scharmers, pusRo, PAGE, and all other content of this page is Copyright (C) 2000 Snakecharmer Software and Chase Dahl. All Rights Reserved. No Content from any of these pages may be reused or distributed without the express written permission of Snakecharmer Software. You go get him kozaburo!!! Marque

Kozaburo, this is from your website: "This file is free for personal / non comarcial use. Copyright (C) 2001 by kozaburo" The Elle101 figure, as stated in the .ZIP's readme, is Freeware, for personal use only, and states that under NO circumstances shall the .ZIP be commercially distributed for ANY purposes. The readme (which I believe all parties involved failed to read) also explicitly states the name of EVERY PERSON whose work is included in Elle, AS WELL as links to their sites. My opinion is included at the bottom of the readme as follows: "Please respect the hard work of others, and let's keep the Free Poser Community FREE!" In other words, I was careful NOT to use any work that included a statement saying: "DO NOT REDISTRIBUTE WITH YOUR OWN MESHES." However, in respect for your excellent work, Kozaburo, I will edit the download so that your hair is no longer included, but will include a link to your site and instructions on the proper scaling of the mesh. In any event, I wish you would have e-mailed me first -- another indication that people are NOT READING THE README. Now for the big question: legally, I could just be a jerk and tell K to f*** off -- there is no wordage on his site that indicates his work is not to be directly distributed (even with full credit). That would be stupid, obviously. Alienating someone whose work I greatly admire is not the best way to go. However, as a new contributor (rather than Freestuff leech), are there some unspoken ground rules out there ? I see other people's stuff included in other people's stuff all the time -- it makes for a nice synergy of work, combining strengths. --scharmers P.S. Marque: the blanket statement on my site is just that -- a blanket statement to prevent people from scamming my name or my art on the pages. Common sense and readme's obviously override this. Please save your selfrighteousness for bad store purchases.

In my opinion you should ask permission of the person who's work you are re-distributing on your site...whether you say it's your own or not isn't the point here. I knew you would come out of the woodwork if you read what I posted, that's why I posted it. And I do have a right to complain if I buy something and it does not work as advertised. I don't think I am wrong by stating what I think of a product, I should not have to fear any reprisal for stating my opinion. You obviously have a problem or you would not have brought that up since it isn't a part of this thread. Pretty lame of you if you ask me. Marque

Nobody asked you, frankly. Kozaburo made a request and I have complied. The new ELLE101.ZIP archive is being fixed and uploaded as I speak. Your opinion was not necessary, and, it was inflammatory. I have made a nice chunk of change covering flame wars as a internet journalist, but I wasn't looking for one here. This issue is over, but I welcome comments from others explaining how they feel about redistribution of others' work when they have NOT made it clear about their feelings on the issue. --Scharmers

Does 'personal use' extend to redistribution?! Just in case you actually need an answer to that: it doesn't. It means use by you, personally. Your ignorance extends to the law. You are not legally entitled to redistribute a copyrighted item just because there is not a specific clause resticting such activity. My car doesn't have 'please don't steal me' written on the side; that doesn't entitle someone to steal it! Unspoken ground rule? How about the common courtesies that most people are raised with, such as not using something without permission. How much effort would it have taken you to write to Kozaburo to ask? "In any event, I wish you would have e-mailed me first..." Your self righteous arrogance is astounding. Like you said, you could just be a jerk...

You are incorrect, PJF. Unless specifically stated, anything may be distributed REGARDLESS of copyright. Freeware is an example of this. Copyrights are maintained on Freeware, meaning that another person cannot modify the work and call it their own. However, the Freeware can be FREELY distributed -- as long as it is not for commercial purposes. If Kozaburo had specifically stated in his website "DO NOT DISTRIBUTE WITH ANY OTHER MESH", by god I wouldn't have done it. "Personal Use" is pretty nebulous -- perhaps my idea of personal use is to apply it to a mesh I'm working on, then distribute that modified mesh. Again, this misunderstanding was quickly corrected in the new archive I'm attempting to upload. I'm saddened that you take an honest mistake so personally, PJF. Posting an email before an open forum accusation would, in most places, be considered common courtesy. It seems I've stumbled into yet another forum out looking for a flame-fight ... This seems to be a lot of trouble when what I basically trying to do was give back to a community whose resources I have relied on for a long time now. I probably shouldn't bother walking into this minefield any more. --scharmers

{Nobody asked you, frankly. } HOWEVER, nettiquette insists that you DO ask first, AND, if you'd been around here for a while (if you have been then you PROBABLY wouldn't have made this "mistake" and I'd probably recognize your name), you'd know that NOT asking permission first generally causes a fight, like the one you're seeing here, to surface. I don't doubt it was an honest mistake, but it was also one that occurs a LOT, and gets a LOT of tempers flared. In general, "Personal Use" is interpreted AT THIS SITE AND THE OTHER GRAPHICS SITES to mean that you can use the model: 1) as an inspirational model for one of your own (i.e., to see how something was done so you can make your own, distinct and different version; you can't use the geometry or any part of the original if you wish to redistribute), and 2) In any non-commercial images/scenes you wish to create. No other use as acceptable, without the permission of the author. {You are incorrect, PJF. Unless specifically stated, anything may be distributed REGARDLESS of copyright. } That is a perversion of the Fair Use laws. You're overlooking the "fair use" part. These laws allow a group working on a project to share materials, and allow a teacher to use part of a book or a news article in class without requiring every member/student to purchase a copy, not to allow you to, for example, give full and complete copies of the item to everyone you know.

Thank you for the polite response, CB. It is appreciated. --scharmers

LOL, yes, let's all be polite to the guy who took without asking. Let's all be 'jolly nice'. Despite an education that's provided you with the ability to construct sentences, you are not only (stubbornly) ignorant of copyright law, you are simply being pig ignorant in general. Taking without asking isn't an 'honest mistake', it's just being a selfish, thoughtless git; the sort of thing most people grow out of before they reach double figures in the age department. Instead of strutting around in righteous indignation that people are daring to be pissed off at you, why don't you just apologise to Kozaburo. That would be the polite thing to do. Instead you have to defend your ego by pretending you're doing him a favour by amending your file. 'Hey K, I could legally tell you to just fuck off, but I'm such a real big man that I'll grant your request'. "...yet another forum..." How many do you have to go through before you realise that it's you that's at fault?

Wow...kids playing again...and the one with a car is trying to be a leader :^). OK here is how i see it: Scharmers - could ask Kozaburo for permission..but he didn't made a mistake (we all make one don't we ??? maybe the one with the car is God and is not making mistake but we humans do) Kozaburo on the other hand could ask in e-mail ...this would be the nice thing to do) And this is my 2 cents sounds good so i'm sticking with it...hey after all it's free country (Kanada)...

PJF: I'm glad you're reading what you think I'm doing into what I'm actually doing. You seem to think that I was a deliberate thief, looking to steal somebody's work (for whatever purposes, you'll have to fill me in on that); while I was simply looking to put up a cool, useful Poser character I put together for my own use. I hope your thinking supports your narrow, argumentative view of the world. I, however, will not play along. The problem is fixed, I'm now aware of the limitations I need to follow when putting stuff up here and on my site, and I consider the issue closed. I'm going to move on, and create some props to get away from the character minefield. All the righteous puffery and troll-bait indignation is being wasted, friend. End of line. --scharmers

Executive summary: Copyright law in the U.S. is governed by federal statute, namely the Copyright Act of 1976. The Copyright Act prevents the unauthorized copying of a work of authorship. However, only the copying of the work is prohibited--anyone may copy the ideas contained within a work. For example, a copyright could cover a written description of a machine, but the actual machine itself is not covered. Thus, no one could copy the written description, while anyone could use the description to build the described machine. Copyrights can be registered in the Copyright Office in the Library of Congress, but newly created works do not need to be registered. In fact, it is no longer necessary to even place a copyright notice on a work for it to be protected by copyright law. However, the Copyright Act does provide additional benefits to those who register with the Copyright Office. Consequently, copyright registration and the use of a copyright notice is recommended I visited your site - And I believe the true issue is your taking credit for anothers work. Please replace Herman Melville with ceba

End of your line, not mine. Oh, I'm sure you'd love it to be by email (a constant suggestion by you to everyone who has protested your actions) - anything to brush your transgression under the carpet. I never said you were a thief, I said you were a selfish, thoughtless git. You may be generous, but when it's with other people's stuff it's way out of order. It doesn't need a degree in social psychology to know you should ask before using something beyond permission given. That's a basic of life, not just Renderosity forums. "...perhaps my idea of personal use is to apply it to a mesh I'm working on, then distribute that modified mesh." That says a lot about you. If you had just apologised to Kozaburo, I wouldn't have given this thread a second glance.

I hate to be the devil advocate, but I am going to be anyway. Both of you could have handle the issue a little better. It would have been better if Mr. Scharmers put a link directly to the hair, indicating that the hair can be found at Kozaburo's website, as well as alerting Kozaburo. As well as many people already own Kozaburo's hair and eyelash map so it would have lighten your file size as well. That way, no infringement would have occurred. It is the right thing to do, that all meshes you did not do be linked to (the creators site), as much as possible as not to violate other's copyright. I can understand Kozaburo's anger, he has helped millions of people out. Telling him that you could tell him to F off was very immature and uncalled for. We are all friends here, well most of us are anyway. Let's try to be adult here. Why say nasty stuff to someone, when you obviously are using his meshes. Second, Mr. Kozaburo could have e-mailed Scharmers first, on a personal basis, giving him a heads up. I find that many people who do this don't really know what they are doing wrong, but will wholeheartly comply and remove the offending file(s) as well as learn a valuable lesson. I could understand if the person didn't comply, but this thread shows you how things can get out of hand when communication isn't flowing. I know life can be stressful, but no need to jump to accusations and immaturity.

"If you had just apologised to Kozaburo, I wouldn't have given this thread a second glance." What? Are you my owner? Are you the Pope? Solieri? You're the guy going around, waving your hand, saying, "I absolve you...I absolve you?" Of all the people I don't have to satisfy, it's you. Call me names, whatever: I'd rather be insulted by you than by somebody I respect. I made an unegregious error then quickly corrected the situation. The offended party in question then gave me a quick nod. Other people gave me a hard-but-fair head's-up on the situation. You, on the other hand, just keep throwing your popcorn from the balcony, with nothing to say and an even more worthless way of saying it. You want to keep this up? I'll be a man and admit I was in the wrong. Sorry, Koz. It won't happen again. Now that THAT'S out of the way, I would be glad to deal with you on the forums, PJF. Like I said, I make a good chunk of my living dealing and participating in flamewars. Maybe you should check out the other part of my site, the one dealing with the Follies. If you're up for a bunch of unwarranted and unnecessary name-calling, well, I'm your man. --scharmers

Wow, is that an apology? So it took goading you out of your 'ended line' to get it, but there it is. I can make snakes dance to my tune, too. I make it my business when I see someone from this community being wronged. If you don't like that, don't fucking wrong them. Don't use people's stuff without asking. You think it's unwarranted and unnecessary name-calling to say you should have learned that before you were ten years old? Tough shit.

Silvermermaid wrote: "...but no need to jump to accusations and immaturity." I don't believe Kozaburo 'jumped' to anything of the sort. He was wronged and he had every right to publicly draw attention to it in the community he so generously supports. Personally, I'm surprised and disappointed that this community was so silent when one of its best contributors cried out. If no-one gives a shit, then it's time for Kozaburo to start charging for his work. Maybe that's the only way to get work treated with some respect around here.

[spits on hands] "I make it my business when I see someone from this community being wronged." In short, you enjoy sticking your nose in other people's business -- asked for or not. This is probably because you have nothing else valid to talk about, so you let other people's coversations give you something to do. Or, you are simply one of those self-righteous nitwits who demonstrate their social immaturity by barging into any conversation or issue whether or not it concerns them. Nobody made you the Forum Defender (hmmm...good idea for a Poser Character here....hold on....) Ah, where was I? Oh, yes. Please continue, though. With more "fucks", and "shits", please. They add spice. --scharmers --whoops. HEY, EVERYBODY READING THIS: D/L the Elle101 model! [YOUR AD HERE]

"Personally, I'm surprised and disappointed that this community was so silent when one of its best contributors cried out." That is because people are more mature than you, PJF. Instead of hysterically freaking out like a two-year old crying over a missing toy, Kozaburo didn't "cry out". He didn't ask for forum condemnation. He said (in essence) -- "What the Hell? Fix that crap, Scharmers!" Pretty mature stuff. No hysteronics, no tattle-tale attitude, just a simple, to the point request. And, holy cats, it worked. It did not take a forum full of teachers slapping my wrist with rulers to fix the situation. It took one mature guy. Saying, "don't do that." With another mature guy saying, "got it. The problem is fixed." Wow. That's all it takes. Something to learn from, PJF. --scharmers

CAN ANY ONE TELL ME WHAT IS THIS STUFF IN FREE STUFF FOR IF YOU CAN"T USE IT ?????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you don't want people to use it (pjf) don't post it here..SELL IT IN THE STORE !!!!!!

NAPSTER I do feel that artist should be paid for the work that they do. My only problem is that most are over paid. I have not downloaded 1 song from NAPSTER just for that reason. BUT I have no problem with duplicating or distributing the CD "I" purchased to any of my friends if they wish to copy it. To put something on the net in mass is asking for trouble. I am really pleased with the work I download here and truthfully if someone wanted to burn a copy of one of my CDs full of files I'd let them. I do not want the great files I get here to stop because of simple misunderstandings but, anyone with any common sense would realise that with so many people on the web you must expect that not every one is honest or will use your files in a way you would always want. This isn't a message to target anyone because I feel that if you post something expect it to be used or misused. I am new to the 3d enviroment and with out this sight and the people that support it my life would be a little less joyful. Can't we all just get along?

{Taking without asking isn't an 'honest mistake', it's just being a selfish, thoughtless git; the sort of thing most people grow out of before they reach double figures in the age department.} Sadly that is NOT true. Should be, but isn't. Just look at our former President Clinton to see what I mean... This kind of thoughtlessness seems to be the NORM not the exception. Not that I'm saying it does (or does NOT) apply to the situation at hand, just saying that what you say SHOULD be true, but isn't! {For example, a copyright could cover a written description of a machine, but the actual machine itself is not covered. } Right - the blue-print is copyrighted, the machine is patented. {CAN ANY ONE TELL ME WHAT IS THIS STUFF IN FREE STUFF FOR IF YOU CAN"T USE IT ?????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!} It is there for use in IMAGES and sometimes as a learning aid, but NOT for redistribution - either for free or for sale - unless the original author SPECIFICALLY grants this priviledge either in an attached ReadMe file or in writing to the person seeking to redistribute. {I have not downloaded 1 song from NAPSTER just for that reason. BUT I have no problem with duplicating or distributing the CD "I" purchased to any of my friends if they wish to copy it. } Morally I kind of agree with this, but legally you are DEAD WRONG. You paid for the license to own a single CD and any number of archival copies; however, the license does NOT give you redistribution rights - you may not sell the copies of the CD, nor may you distribute the ENTIRE CD. There is a loop-hole, involving Fair Use laws, that will allow you to redistribute SOME of the individual songs, however. BTW, it is also TECHNICALLY illegal to copy television and radio broadcasts, if you do not retain the only copy for yourself.

I think the FEDs are going to have a hard time prosecuting and or finding room in jail for several million people when they are over crowded already. Who doesn't do or own something illegal every so often. If every teen that drank while underage was in jail our schools would be empty. Hell kids are killing people now. I just think that yes every one screwed this whole, this is mine thing up and it really has gone a little to far. I can see the whats mine is mine thing but, most of what I see is somebody elses stuff rearanged a little anyway. Not all of us are as gifted as some and have to sponge off of others. I'm sorry but, it's a fact. It's not like the guy is making a profit by including it in his file. AND yes he should have asked first. I would have asked before starting the character. If I wanted to build a character around an object I think needed to be included in the file it would be a bummer to find out after its completion I couldn't use it. And I see no reason why it shouldn't be included with credit to Koz with a link to his sight included in the RM.txt Hell I wouldn't want to go looking all over the damn net looking for 8 morphs and 3 objects included in a file that gives credit to one person and the other 10 things I'm sorry guys but I forgot who made these. If it was yours E me and I'll give you credit. " like they download every damn file to see if their shit is included in it." Bottom line is share. If I ever post something. And I have made a few cruddy objects but, don't think they are good enough to post. You can do anything you want besides sell them and not give me credit. I don't give a damn if you include them in every file you create it's advertisement for me. One closing remark. I really enjoy the 3D-CC sight but don't you think if some of these Companies really wanted to be anal they could try to get their character removed. what is the difference between an idea for a comic hero and a song to the court system?

None of this matters anyway, now -- Tripod got offended at SOMETHING on my site (funny; it contained no nudity, no warez, and the .MP3s on there were noncommercial remixes of music from a game that has been out of print for six years...hmmm...) and nuked it. I got it back up again (thanks to namezero redir and another TP account) but I think I'm out of the character business (other than for my own use and in images). Oh well. Trying to provide a nicely put-together figure for the Poser Community was far, far more trouble than it's worth. You've got self-righteous nitwits like PJF (who, based on searches, has never contributed ANYTHING here in the Gallery or Freestuff), and people who are quick to quote copyright law when its obvious that their stuff is a reworked scan of a commercial photograph, something based on other copyrighted materials ("Star Wars" characters, anyone, etc.?), etc. I was happier lurking, that's for sure. --Scharmers

Thanks, but it's easy to be self righteous when oneself is right. ;-) You gave it a good try too, but since it was a house of cards built on a foundation of thoughtlessly using without asking, it became a sad ego defense mechanism. Attempting to divert your culpability into derision of me is mildly amusing, but still an exercise in denial. You can say what you like about me (it might even be true), but the facts remain that I didn't engage in activity prompting a public warning from a respected community member - you did. Whatever our respective merits, I'm happy with the balance. There's nothing wrong with being in the character 'business', just use your own stuff; or other people's stuff only after you've got permission first. It's just a question of character...

{One closing remark. I really enjoy the 3D-CC sight but don't you think if some of these Companies really wanted to be anal they could try to get their character removed. what is the difference between an idea for a comic hero and a song to the court system?} As long as the copyrighted characters are not used in a way to make profit - OR, if they are, the company holding the copyright was a) asked IN ADVANCE and b) offered some compensation - there isn't any problem, unless the characters are used in a way to defame the copyright holders (and that is usually determined by lawyers). This latter is why the old Nude Raider site, the one with the "patch" to remove Lara Croft's clothes in the Tomb Raider games, was closed down. {Thanks, but it's easy to be self righteous when oneself is right. ;-)} TRUE, BUT that also puts the other party on the defensive, which prompts a feud instead of a discussion... As we can see here...

"As long as the copyrighted characters are not used in a way to make profit" LOL! Ever hear of the term "FOXED"? --scharmers --Elle V2 (EveV4) character out now

Actually CB, the owner of any copyrighted or trademarked item can insist upon its removal from any use to which they haven't given license or permission - and that includes non-profit fan material. If LucasFilm or DC Comics wanted fan material (such as the various figures made and exchanged for free by Poser users) removed from the web, they could get their way - legally. As you indicated, they tend to only put their stamping boots on when money starts to change hands. Paramount instituted a major pruning of Star-Trek websites; anything that was for profit went, as did anything that directly diluted the profitability of their own commercial activities. The myriad of 'regular' fan sites were largely untouched. This 'stamp on commercialism only' approach is based on their own generosity with their intellectual property, not on any rights of individuals to exchange that property in a non-profit way. If they don't want you to 'mess with their stuff', they can stop you. There was a notorious case where Disney insisted (via legal threats) that a mural depicting their characters be removed from a school wall - the kids themselves did the painting. It was their right to insist, but of course the negative publicity it generated wasn't helpful to them. I believe Warner stepped in and gave permission for the kids to paint their trademarked characters, and paid for the paint too. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TRUE, BUT that also puts the other party on the defensive, which prompts a feud instead of a discussion... As we can see here... <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< To which I must use the time-honoured response of 'he started it!' ;-) If you read the thread, you'll notice I only waded in after an audacious post, almost completely lacking in remorse, humility or grace, was made in response to Kozaburo's warning. The arrogance of that annoyed me, especially given the nature of Kozaburo's enduring generosity and politeness to this community. I wanted to see if Scharmers would actually say 'sorry' to Kozaburo, and so started pressing buttons. Beyond that, my involvement has been strictly for fun. I suspect the same might be true for Scharmers. This thread is well and truly buried in the usual Renderosity forum deposition process; hardly anybody is watching, so no-one is inconvenienced except those who can be bothered to dig this deep.

{"As long as the copyrighted characters are not used in a way to make profit" LOL! Ever hear of the term "FOXED"?} I think so, but it doesn't apply in this case, as you were redistributing a file without the author's permission; what you did was rude and improper, but not strictly illegal. {Actually CB, the owner of any copyrighted or trademarked item can insist upon its removal from any use to which they haven't given license or permission - and that includes non-profit fan material.} You are correct; I was over simplifying. {To which I must use the time-honoured response of 'he started it!' ;-)} Ah yes. It would appear that way... But two wrongs do not a right make... ;-)

< makes note in diary > 'next time CB goes off on one, check for 'wrongs'' ;-)

Of course, three rights make a left, IIRC... ;-)

They do that in London a lot. Trouble is, once they've started you off, they often don't bother to point out which right turns you're subsequently supposed to use. Eventually you see a sign, and find that you're in Epping Forest.

Ah, so Boston was patterned after London - and then paved by drunks... ;-)

Not to rejoin the subject, but this reminds me of a Discovery channel thing I saw on an English lady who absolutely refused to make right turns in her car. She would plan out routes and go miles out of her way to avoid making a right turn. The best part was the lady's little girl saying on camera, "Mummy's driving is rubbish," with Dad sitting there smirking, until the little girl mentioned that "Dad loves mum's trips since he can football in his pajamas cuz she's gone so long". --scharmers

Didn't know you could get to Epping Forest via Boston. Obviously haven't been lost enough yet. ;-) I lived near the original Boston for ages, and went to college there. I am able to say that I was educated in Boston, but it doesn't quite have the weight as saying it over there.

This has little to do with anything near the bottom of the thread, but---a good model to follow is Rena's at Fairywood. She obviously contacts all parties involved when she uses their props, hair, etc. in one of her characters--and then cites them in her readme. She either includes the files in her character OR she tells you that you must have these files--and where to obtain them--on her page. All of her things are freestuff--but obtainable only from her site. I like her philosophy and her attitude (though I have no complaints about those who do choose to sell their things if they are outstanding quality).

"As long as the copyrighted characters are not used in a way to make profit - OR, if they are, the company holding the copyright was a) asked IN ADVANCE and b) offered some compensation - there isn't any problem, unless the characters are used in a way to defame the copyright holders (and that is usually determined by lawyers)." I know I'm getting off the whole reason this was started in the first place but... I still don't get this copyright stuff. You mean I can only use something unless someone gets pissed enough to call my bluff and take it to court? From what I understand Napster isn't making any money providing a "service" to the public by offering FREE downloads. The same as what most of you are doing. So it's OK to offer a SUPERMAN character to several million people but not a song. As soon as I make a comic book or CD and sell it I go to prison. Napster didn't sell the music which brings me back to the circle I'm in. What about complete books I've seen or rules for RPG's. Heck half the tutorials are better or slightly improved on the original. If for some reason I created a mesh named BOB and unknown to me out of the few thousand BOBs that are alive at this moment slightly resembled him he could take me to court saying I copied him. I think that most of the work here is very good work but for something to be 100% original it would have to be conceived without any input from the enviroment you grew up in, which is impossible because you learn something from your life experiences every day. Try to come up with something nobody has ever thought of. Only a few have ever done that... then again maybe not.

There are two mains types of intellectual property (not including patents, which is another field altogether). You need to consider the difference between copyright and trademark. A pop song is copyrighted; the Superman character is trademarked. With the pop song, you can't copy it for redistribution unless you are given a specific license (radio stations, etc). If you have a retail CD around, somewhere on it or its packaging there will be a restriction clause about what you can do with it. It doesn't need to be there by law, the copyright protection stands regardless. It is put there, pretty much, for information purposes. But if you wanted, you could write a song about that song, and sell it. So long as you didn't copy any music or lyrics from the original, your song wouldn't be breaking any copyrights. If you wrote a song about Superman and tried to sell that, then you'd be breaking the trademark on that character. The trademark owner is the only one entitled to do trade on that character. Likewise, if you painted completely original pictures of Star Trek characters, you wouldn't be breaking any copyrights, but you'd be running foul of a trademark if you attempted to sell them. As with all laws, it is illegal to break them under any circumstances - but it's getting caught that does the damage. You could counterfeit bank notes and stick them under your matress for your own personal amusement. It would be illegal (with a vengeance) but you'd only get busted if the authorities found out. As for BOB: You could create a mesh modelled in the likeness of somebody called Bob (or paint a picture of them, whatever), and it would be your work, your copyright. Unless that person had trademarked their celebrity (Madonna, The Spice Girls, etc), you could distribute it to your heart's content. Making something original in the likeness of something or someone is not the same as copying it or them. (Precedent has already established that Bob doesn't even own his own genetic makeup! If you market a vaccine (or whatever) that is made using some of Bob's genetic material, Bob isn't entitled to a red cent.) In the case of Napster, it is true that they weren't themselves hosting or offering any copyrighted items for sale. This is why it took so long for the record companies to get them. Napster was essentially brought down because, by publishing lists of members offerings on the Napster servers, they were shown to be accomplices in illegal distribution of copyrighted material. Their defence was that they were doing no more than the postal service does when someone sends copied music in a parcel through the post. But it didn't hold up - as soon as they put those lists and contacts on their servers, they became accomplices. Napster's real problem is that it wasn't a fully peer-to-peer operation. By hosting those lists and contacts, it still operated in a server-client mode. When you're a server, you get held responsible for what you host. There is software that is fully peer to peer, and that will enable individual computers to exchange encrypted data over the internet without any information about what is on those computers being hosted anywhere except those computers. This fully anarchic set-up will be the replacement to Napster (and to warez websites, etc). It will be the equivalent of you and your friends exchanging those illegal CD copies of music amongst yourselves. I won't give out the names of those various software options, because I'm none to impressed with copyright busting. It is essentially theft.

I kinda see both point of view's in this and am not taking side's, but as a newbie I have downloaded hundreds of zipfile's for poser and bryce even though I dont have bryce in the hopes of buying it one day. With the exception's of the more well know character's, props that are for sale Vicky,Mike ect... I can't tell who made what. Lot's of time's there is no readme,credit's ect... included in the zip's and I sure as heck dont remember what site I got them from. But just the thought of offending someone by using his prop's ect... without giving them credit unitentionally which I think was the case here or not being well versed in issue's of copyright's held me back from rendering background's prop's,pictures or anything of that nature. With the exception of some pregnant morph's I never used anything that I didn't twist the dials on myself(painful learning experience for a newbie - had to read the damm manual)and these kind of outburst has prompted me to delete all image's ever posted by me, just in case I broke anyone's rule's ect...Also from what I understand from talking to a lawyer(on the net) anything that is posted as free on the net regardless of copyright, restriction's ect... become's just that public domain once you post it as free any claim's you have to it become unenforcable in a court of law. Not that I want to challenge this over anyone's prop's or even care for that matter or even know if this is true. But some of you people like Kozaburo (have never found a working link to your website) might want to check up on this. Actually I enjoy reading the flame's and it's hard not to comment on them, spend more time here reading them then looking thru the gallery.

<> First, I am not a lawyer. If you really want solid advice that you can approach a court with some measure of confidence with, consult an attorney who is a SPECIALIST IN COPYRIGHT LAW! Don't just ask any Tom, Dick, or Barry who happens to have an LLD. I've seen nearly as much nonsense spouting from non-specialist lawyers regarding copyright law as I see on D&D newsgroups. My statements are an opinion of as a citizen of the USA and are not to be construed as the "practice of law", either by comission or omission. Shooby-doo wop, ba-dow. I have already quoted relevant portions of US copyright code (which is essentially identical in this particular instance to the Berne Accord on Intellectual Properties) in another thread here. Summary of the law, as on the books: Copyright exists from the moment a work is created. "Created" is defined in an EXTREMELY broad fashion, so that a "work in progress" is still considered to be "created" for the purpose of copyright law. With the exception of two South American countries that are not signatory to the Berne Accord, there is NO NEED AT ALL for a specific claim of rights to appear on a copyrighted work aside from the appropriate general copyright claim. That is, the law does NOT require that one explicitly rescind permission to distribute. Copyright automatically gives an exclusive distribution license to the copyright holder. The holder is free to designate agents or even surrender that right in toto. Now, this is the law. The reality is that copyright is usually a civil matter unless money changes hands, at which point it becomes a criminal matter. Civil matters are only pursued at the behest of a plaintiff, costs accrued to the plaintiff, but possibly transferrable to defendant upon award of settlement. The fact that this means that people without money cannot defend their copyright in no way means that people who willfully violate copyright are any less the miserable dogs they are, deserving of exclusion from all decent society. Indeed, it makes such people all the worse--it makes them cowards and bullies, only picking upon those who cannot adequately defend themselves. However, for there to be willful violation, there must be knowing violation. Ignorant operation in violation of copyright, while illegal, is morally less reprehensible and can likely be better handled via private gentlemanly communication.