if I make pictures using models/props/etc...am I legally ok to post them here...? not for sale/profit...just for my own artistic outlet? extremely confused as to the rules of copyright laws. Thankyou in advance JP

Posting images here, or anywhere on the internet where you are not receiving monies would be, as I understand it -- I'm not a lawyer, considered personal use. So as long as the license for the models/props/etc doesn't restrict from using their item for personal use (I've only heard of restrictions like this once, most people are fine with this) you are in the clear.

BTW, whether they ask you to in the readme or not, it's always a good idea to give credit where credit is due.

thankyou for your response...credit would go to most everyone here I would think. :o) Thanks again JP

Everytime I answer a copyright related question I get flamed or, worse yet, pshawed. But, I guess I'm just into self-torture. Anyway, I am NOT an attorney. However, I do have an attorney quite experienced in copyright and trademark law. This very question arose a few months ago and I was somewhat surprised at his answer. He said no. If a model states it is purely for non-commercial, personal use then posting an image made with it in a public gallery such as this would be considered a violation of that model's terms of use and, therefore, the copyright protection of the creator. Why? As it was explained to me, a gallery such as the public galleries here COULD be considered a showplace of your work for potential clients. In other words, you COULD be using the galleries to promote your talents. Promotion is considered a COMMERCIAL act even if the work actually used in the promotion is never directly sold for profit. It is actually a bit more involved than that, but he was very firm in his opinion and stated clearly that there is legal precedent. That is why my attorney very, very firmly advised that I delete ANY file downloaded from here or any other archive that does not EXPLICITLY and CLEARLY allow commercial use. So, half to three quarters of the items I dl is deleted right after I read the readme. Most of the stuff I use is either purchased or of my own crude creation. Well, that is what I have been advised by my attorney. You will hear hoots and hollers from many that will state that those who post their creations in Freestuff did not mean their usage to be so restricted. Too bad. Their TOS should state so. If their TOS in their readme, for those that provide a readme, do not EXPLICITLY and CLEARLY allow commercial use, then the most you can do with them is make creations for your own personal, PRIVATE viewing. The only reason I answer these questions is in hopes of preventing people from either innocently stepping on someone's rights or getting themselves in trouble by accident. Also, it is hoped that the very talented creators of the items offered here and elsewhere will take the time to make a clearly defined readme file. But, I will now take a few days off from here to allow the flames to die down a bit. Take care and Godspeed.

"Might be considered a showcase"? That sounds silly. As faras I am concerned, the only offence would be to upload someone else's mesh file. Or, to use a copyrighted texture in an uploaded picture in such a way that it could be recovered complete from the picture.

Thank you for that information casamerica. I suppose that is true. I'm sure that many people who provide items "for personal" use only would like to see their models/props/figures/textures seen in gallery renderings, but don't realize that the language in their readme restricts this. Maybe what we need here is some new language that better expresses our intentions better to use in our licenses. I personally have no problem allowing people to use my creations for commercial use (as long as its not redistribution), but what term can others use that would allow someone to post a rendering in a gallery like this, but prohibit them from using the item in a television commercial?

Cas seems to be erring on the side of caution, and is successful in not harming anyone at all. This is fine. For myself, i would ask the creator of a character (or texture or prop) if i was in doubt about whether i could create a pic for sale using their character. i have interpreted some of the TOS the same way Anthony does. i figure, it's a case of Do As You Would Be Done By. i know i'd like to be asked first, at least. Personally, if i put something as a freebie on my web site or in Free Stuff, i don't expect to control its use well or at all, and no sense fussing. If it's offered for sale--that's another story. But this is just me. --Nan

"Might be considered a showcase"? British law has a principle "De minimis non curat lex" = "The law does not concern itself with very small matters". The amount of business promotion showcase type benefit got by a few routine pictures buried among (currently) 28625 pictures in Renderosity's art gallery, must be extremely minimal. Keep on rendering, keep on posting.

It's an interesting question. My understanding is that the artist's copyright of a model prevents anyone redistributing or copying the MODEL, but that the only copyright in an image is that of the creator of the image. Just as if I take a photo of your house, I don't infringe any copyright on your house. A model used in a render is analagous to paint used in a painting, and the paint manufacturer has no rights in the painting. Secondly, so far as I understand, downloading a model and using it does not constitute a contract with the maker of the model. The modeller may set out terms and conditions but do these have any legal force if there is no agreement with the user? I suspect not. Obviously it makes sense to respect the modeller's wishes, or one would be biting the hand that feeds one, but if one wishes to view it from a legal angle, the case is far from clear.

Please, people, read the actual law on this matter. Don't just go off of what "sounds good". US Title 17 is very explicit. A copyright holder has EXCLUSIVE rights to any form of distribution or public display of a copyrighted work. Whether or not there is any chance of profit is irrelevant. The grey area appears when one uses a copyrighted work (object mesh and textures) to make a new work, which would be copyrighted to the artist making the new work. The question then arises as to whether or not the new work is legally derivative of the old. Note that "legally derivative" is NOT the same as any sort of real-world definition. There are a lot of murky principles in this. Model meshes are a special case, since they really are a set of instructions, which means that they are a means of describing a method. Methods cannot be copyrighted (but they can be patented). Thus, a model mesh, while the file might be copyrightable, possibly cannot be used as the basis for a claim of derivative status. A texture, on the other hand, is much less well-defined. There is no legal precedent, therefore, there is NO basis upon which to make a decision other than a blind guess. Good sense cannot be safely applied in any legal question that does not have a court decision. Good sense and legality are two completely different worlds. Now, looking at the posted picture, I would say (as a non-lawyer) that it could infringe on copyright--it would infringe on the copyright of whomever holds the rights to the photograph used as the background. Yes, photographs are copyrighted, even if you use them as a background.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?Form.ShowMessage=255981

I suppose you could go on forever with fussing about subfractions of copyright. An unusual plane flies low overhead, or something. I take a photograph and upload it to explain what I saw. The photo is my copyright. But: It happens to include three advertisements on a roadside hoarding, so I must consult the advert design firms that made up those advertisements. The plane has a logo on its side: that logo was designed hy someone and I must consult whoever has its copyright. For the photo I use a videocamera; its sound track picks up a snatch of copyrighted pop music from a portable stereo that some teenager is carrying by at the time. Etc etc ad absurdum et nauseam et ridiculissimum et paranoidissimum. Forget it. Copyright was made for man, not man for copyright.

Excatly. People are starting to push the copyright issues to the realms of stupidity. Everyone wants a piece of the pie without realizing that somewhere along the line, common sense was lost.

Trying to apply the Bible to modern intellectual property law is tantamount to insisting that Marquis of Queensbury rules be used in the Balkans. The Pharisees have taken over the courts a long time ago. Like it or not, whomsoever can hire the baddest lawyers can often get a case to come out how he wants, regardless of what is right. As I have said before, good sense and law are two different realms. If you want to swim with the sharks, go ahead, but don't get offended if a shark bites--they're just being sharks. What you may want the world to be like and what the world is are not necessarily the same things. If there is no court case specifically pertaining to an issue at hand, there is no legal certainty in this day and age. It stinks, but reality has a habit of doing that. Sorry to tinkle on your campfire, but what we would like to happen isn't always what happens in the real world.

thankyou all...I asked this question because try as I might I have been unable to draw people...well...so they look like people anyway...poser offers me an alternative...did anyway...as for napster...I won't go there except to say I don't use it...I didn't agree with its use in the first place. The sample above was used as a way of expressing what I was trying to put into words...anyway...if I understand what I read here I guess its back to the drawing board.Wish me luck. JP

When you purchased Poser, you purchased license to use all of the figures for personal or commercial use (not including redistribution/selling). It is perfectly legal to use the figures that come with Poser (as well as others purchased from DAZ/Zygote) in renderings that you display here or elsewhere.

The gray areas that we are discussing here for the most part have more to do with items available for free or sold by individuals.

So what are the Marquis of Queensbury rules anyway? Been wondering that for years S

Interesting point, cas... I could understand your attorney's point of view for people who do also sell their work or profit in any way from computer graphics. In that case, it COULD be advertising and therefore commercial to post in the galleries, or anywhere else. I would differ with him when it came to people who only use poser and 3D graphics as a hobby and not for commercial gain at all. Their postings COULD NOT be considered advertisement for their services since they do not offer computer graphic services for profit. In that case their posts would only be exploring and sharing their personal hobby with others. As in all matters of the law, neither oppinion is any good unless tested by a court decision. He said he has a precident, but I bet it still doesn't encompass all of the potential issues here (like the one I raised). My impression of this community is that a lot of impressive sharing goes on here. Sharing of techniques and ideas which is very healthy. Lately there have been more and more discussions about copyrights, rights, ownership, etc. I certainly do think that people deserve credit for their work, but it would be a shame if people are driven away from sharing and colaborating because of this shift... Just my thoughts after a few months of watching and learning from you all.

If you are a US citizen and are using a material produced by a US citizen (and no citizens of a Berne Accord country), commercial use is IRRELEVANT to whether or not something is a copyright infringement. Copyright law (Title 17 US Code) explicitly covers DISTRIBUTION and PUBLICATION of any form for copyrighted material. The difference is that if it is not done for profit, there is less chance of criminal action being taken by the government (although a civil trial could proceed on the initiative of the copyright holder who claims infringement). The material that comes with Poser has a license that permits fairly free use (but not direct redistribution). My morphable dagger and my wife's Uthena Dress texture has a license that only prohibits redistribution of the specific files. Other licenses that say "for personal use only", if you want to be legally safe, really do mean that--no publication at all of the results.

IANAL (I am not a lawyer), so anything I say has absolutely no legal meaning, but the very idea of a person saying their models and meshes can't be used commerically hits me as a lost cause, why not say the items can't be used in poses you don't like, or only with a blue background? Or something else equally silly? Not to mention that some of this is part of the Poser website battle, which I'm not going to get into.

{why not say the items can't be used in poses you don't like, or only with a blue background? Or something else equally silly? } Such as someone's restriction a while back that nobody on Renderosity could use thier models? Yeah, it does seem kind of, well, STUPID, but it is the author's prerogative to place whatever restrictions they feel justified in placing on their offerings - ESPECIALLY if those offerings are for free...

Yeah, saying that a model can't be used commerically as stupid as saying that one shouldn't redistribute the models that come with Poser--or the Poser program itself.

But what "is using commerically" I think it is one thing to sell renders made with stuff, another to put a render up that can be viewed for free on a site that happens to have advertising banners. Where do you draw the line? From what others have said I don't think renders produced with a product are covered by any restrictions placed on a product anyway. I have a hard time connecting this argument to warez, not the same thing. IMHO all items that have commericial restrictions should be removed from Free Stuff, or to put it another way, one of the conditions to put things in Free Stuff would be no commerical restrictions.

{IMHO all items that have commericial restrictions should be removed from Free Stuff, or to put it another way, one of the conditions to put things in Free Stuff would be no commerical restrictions. } You know that makes sense - if you want to restrict people's use of your stuff, put it on your own site or sell it. If you want to make it free, then make it COMPLETELY free.

A usage restriction is an implicit contract. If you don't want to adhere to the contract, don't use the item. It's really that simple. If it's a sewperkewltotallydewd sort of item and you still can't bring yourself to adhere to the contract, develop the skill to make one yourself. The ONLY way to really get anything free and clear is to make it yourself--and even then you have to put in the effort. Nobody is forcing you to use anything that appears on any site. Thus, there is no injustice in most use restrictions, certainly not in any restriction message I've actually seen included with a download. If you're so hot up on "free" meaning "use it any way you want" then take the lead! Build a bunch of slam-down perfect models and give them away with no restrictions. Do the same for textures. Put them up and watch them fly. Lead by example.

{If you're so hot up on "free" meaning "use it any way you want" then take the lead! Build a bunch of slam-down perfect models and give them away with no restrictions. } If I could I would.

... commercial use... How often is Poser or Bryce used to make pictures in advertisements and brochures etc? A few times I have seen a somewhat Posette-like woman in an advertisement, but I could count the instances on the fingers of one hand.

Hmmmm, I think I might eventually reach the slam-down phase in my Poser characters, but I pretty sure the perfect is out of the question. :) Anyway, all my characters in the free stuff (such as they are) can be used however you see fit, for personal or commercial use, in renders, animation etc. All I restrict is the redistribution of the actual models and textures. I look at it as giving away a set of paints. What kind of gift would that be I told you how and when you could use them? If (or when) I want to make money on my characters I will sell them, and/or produce art for sale using them. I don't begrudge someone else making a little money using my Poser figures, in fact I'd be happy something I did has helped someone else. Shrug, that's where I stand on the whole thing. regards- Lemurtek

My main problem with restrictions is, after awhile, items get to the point that where sometimes you can't remember where they came from, and what restrictions came with them. I'd mostly rather not have them at all if there were any restrictions on use. Not to look a gift horse in the mouth, but if they can't give it out for unlimited use, I'd rather not waste my time downloading it. Incidently, has anyone else seen that TV commercial that sells the magic breast cream and also thought that Poser could have done a lot better job on the wireframe?

Then download nothing and make it all yourself. Who are they to put conditions on your use? Who are YOU to put conditions on THEIR distribution? What makes your comfort more important than theirs? If you find use restrictions so all-fired offensive, then don't use the materials. If you find the possiblity of use restrictions so offensive, then don't download. Make all your own stuff and know that you can do whatever you want with it or commission people to do it as "work for hire", which means that you'll own all rights. Nobody forces you to use other peoples' work in your own work.

After I put a diver's fin in the Poser Free Stuff, I found it incorporated without asking me in two asssmbled scuba divers that other people uploaded, but I didn't think it worth while to start a warez kerfuffle. The people involved may as well be allowed to keep their models on site.

Who am I? A person who has contributed Free Stuff. Who are you? I don't want to get into a pissing match over this, but I'd like to see what I said as a requirement to have items in Free Stuff. Do I feel strongly enough about this to pull my items unless I get my way? No, I don't. PS. I seldom use other peoples work in my renders, anymore, other than poses- I really like the Betty Page poses at BBay, and the second batch, which is called something else.

I have also contributed to Free Stuff. If you want to demand a specific set of requirements, you can set up a server/interchange or convince the managers of this server/interchange that your set of requirements are better than what they currently have. Of course, since you don't feel that your proposed requirements have any importance, you'll have a steep uphill battle. And in any case, you are perfectly free to release your works into the public domain--it is your right. It is also the right of other people not to do so. Of course, your set of requirements is of EXACTLY THE SAME sort of pre-restrictions that you object against. However, you would put the onus of restrictive burden upon the donor rather than the recipient. As I have said before, nobody is obliged to use or even download anything showcased on this or any other such site. Thus, there is no injustice in reasonable use limitations ("reasonable" used in the legal sense, not in the good sense sense).