I uploaded a product last week, and this morning I received this e-mail from Helen.

[quote]
I am currently pre-testing your product and found the following problems:

Your statement of ownership has the following

All of this product's content was created by JHoagland and mrsparky.

VanishingPoint is the sole vendor listed therefore you should have only one person listed as the owner of the product and have the second person listed as using their resources.

The ownership statement should be one of the following  using the EXACT wording.

** Include one of the following statements if you used licensed source material:

1. "All of this product's content was created by [Vendor(s)/Merchant(s) and/or Real Name(s)] using the

following Vendor Resources:
(Product Name) by (Vendor/Merchant Name)
(Product Name) by (Vendor/Merchant Name)
Etc....
Substitute the Product Name and Vendor/Merchant name as applicable.

1. All of the content in this package was created by [Vendor(s)/Merchant(s) and/or Real Name(s)], and may

include derivatives of the following Vendor/Merchant resources:
(Product Name) by (Vendor/Merchant Name)
(Product Name) by (Vendor/Merchant Name)
Etc....
Substitute the Product Name and Vendor/Merchant name as applicable.

You can download the Renderosity Readme generator from here:
http://www.renderosity.com/artistdownload.ez?fileid=25266&key=63853
 
Your product failed Pre-Testing and will be deleted. Please re-upload your product when it is ready.
[/quote]
I have been using this same "statement of ownership" ever since Renderosity required it and I have never had a problem with it until now. The product itself was made by (or "created by") myself and mrsparky, although it was uploaded under the VanishingPoint merchant account. I made the model and mrsparky made the textures. We have had this working arrangement since 2004, there are no "merchant resources" used in this product, and Renderosity had always allowed the wording of the statement.

Has there been a change in the requirements? When did the requirements change? Why was the product failed?

I may try uploading it again, but this time only crediting "VanishingPoint". This doesn't give proper credit to the modeller or texturer, but hopefully, maybe, it will satisfy Renderosity's requirements.

P.S. I am posting this message in the Poser Forum because, after 5 years of being a merchant here, the admins have removed my access to the Merchant Forum.

Helen is the same beta tester that told Cocco:

"I have tested your product for the Renderosity Marketplace and found that:

You have
All of this products modelling was performed by: Cocco
MAT file for pants transparencies by: ~.¤Logan§Fury¤.~

These statements Must contain the exact wording.

You should have

All of this product's content was created by ~.¤Logan§Fury¤.~"

She seems to have a severe problem with simple, factual, informative readme credits, and insisted on an illogical and incorrectly worded readme edit before allowing Cocco's product thru.

To this day I cant fathom why her first directive to Cocco was to give me 100% credit for his work. She seemed rather confused for a person with the power to pull a product in my opinion. Others milage with her may vary of course.

I hope it works out and you are allowed to credit mrsparky in a more literate fashion than Cocco and I had to comply with.

Good Luck

From what I recently read about a similar product reject for the same issues I'm under the impression a new person is testing that may not understand how to interpret a collaborated item. I could be way off base but it kind of makes sense.

That second rejection notice reads to me as if it were computer-generated!

I hate to sound like a brown noser but I'm going to anyway.  Renderosity have, for reasons best known to themselves, tightened up on the issue of Read Me's and how they must be worded and if they are not worded exactly as shown on their Submission Guidelines it is an immediate fail.  The tester is only doing what they have been instructed to do in the way they have been instructed to do it.  Part of that is that the merchant name in the Read Me has to match the merchant name of the vendor account so, it she is right to ask you to put VanishingPoint as opposed to the individual names. 

Maybe write back and copy in one or both of the store admins and ask if:

"All of this products content was created by jhoagland and mrsparky collectively known as VanishingPoint"

 would be acceptable.  To me that would fulfil all criteria as specified by their guidelines but as I am neither an admin or a tester I can only guess.

Quote - Part of that is that the merchant name in the Read Me has to match the merchant name of the vendor account

This explanation would have been very helpful and would explain what I needed to change. So why didn't Helen just say this in her e-mail?

this is why i don't sell through r'osity any more.

1, they take too much.  I'm sorry, but you guys do.  60% for what? 

2, the read me stuff, is a little over strict in my opinion.  I knew very very very VERY well the legal balance that a readme.txt file can hold.

but

"mrsparky made the textures, jhoagland made the model"  is legal staright up and down.  there is no question about who did what for this particular project.  Why deny it?  That just hurts renderosity.com in the long run.

I have had TONS of sales since I stopped selling through renderosity.com.  I quit selling through you guys because of the time it takes for you to siphon through the 10 billion v3 texture packs just to get to real models, then to go through the whole, big seller list (which i'm not dogging on you guys, you have the sales to back up your work) then you get to us little peons that make $100 here, $300 lifetime there, etc etc.  Not big money but I've made double that since I made the decision to not sell through R'osity all together.

IMO, as a merchant, I would suggest being just a NOTCH leniant on the readme files cuz yall are losing merchants, items to sell and thus in the end , you are losing...MONEY.

.02 spent non-refundable thank you pull up to the next window.

I still have my Poser products here in the RMP, but I would never sell my C4D plugins here.  Let's do the math, shall we:

I've made $8000+ minus PayPal's ~5% selling it at my website through PayPal - about $7700 income.

If I sold it here, despite the conveniences (credit cards and publicity), that would come out to be about $3400 income.

My next plugin might make $50,000 in a similar time period.  To give Renderosity 60% of that would be suicide!  I stand to make $47,500 profit.  The alternative would be $20,000.  That's a difference between pocket-money and real income.

The differences aren't amazing, but enough to make one wonder if the effort to conform is worth it - $27,000 isn't worth the minor conveniences!

Robert

I don;t know why JHoagland but it is something I've figured out through lurking here, there and everywhere - lurking can pay off if I can mange to keep my lip zipped every now and then ;o)  Hopefully you can get this sorted out pdq and get your product in the store, it is especially frustrating when a format you ahve used before is no longer acceptable - been caught on that one myself.

They take 50% not 60%.  Unless you are in the Top35 then they take 40%, I think that's where the confusion over cuts has come from.

I can see why you don't want to sell your C4D stuff here, i have always seen Renderosity as being primarily a Poser Marketplace and that won't change unless Poser disappears up its own backside which I don;t see in my crystal ball.

From my perspective I have tried large sites, small sites and middling sites and it all boils down to I sell best here so I'll stick with here, have my own site, well there's 3 of us all clubbed together for it, and that's it.  I recently closed my stores at other sites because they are not viablemarkets for me with all the differences in submission criteria and whilst I'm not makin megabucks I easily treble my income off the other sites combined here at renderosity - yes my sales there were that bad :o

uhm, quick question. 

if jH modelled it

sparky textured it

there would be no vendor resources, would there?  So what's to enter?

I think it's more because they are submitted under the name Vanishing Point and yet attributed ti two other name s- the creative team of Vanishing Point if you will.  Renderosity don;t seem to handle partnership works very well unless you submit it as being a joint effort on two accounts.  I have done this several times and the wording "Valerian70" and LadyBea32 who together comprise House of Bearian" always passes muster BUT we do submit it as being a joint venture under our normal Screen IDs rather than as a seperate House Of Bearian entity.

Confused yet?????

LOL

Quote - To give Renderosity 60% of that would be suicide!

It would probably fall under software/utility programs and be 70/30 split. > Quote - Payment for Digital Products is as follows: (Artist/Renderosity) 50%/50% Nonexclusive 50%/50% Exclusive * 60%/40% Exclusive for Top Selling vendors*, ** 70%/30% Software Packages or Utility Programs

I've been always been confused by the very concept of an ownership statement and  what purpose it actually serves.

If it's meant as a form of protectionism for a store and an artist, then it's about usefull as an invisible frog called Brian. If someone wants to steal your work a statement doesn't protect you or the store.  They will do it anyway.

If it's designed to be a sytem to slow down store submissions, then stores (not just here) should say so. I think using Blackheart's idea of quality control is much better one.

it's like the additional licences that are creeping in on top of the roisty one. While these are supposed to offer additional terms to the buyer again they don't.

Both just add an increased level of red-tape to whats supposed to be a fun hobby.

So my next product will say drawn by the cat and the licence will only let you use it on a wednesday when the moon is purple and being roundly rogered by mars. That makes a lot  more than some of the rules :)

And the difference is?  25% more lost to put it here than sell it mysefl?  Unless there was a worthwhile reason - such as super expanded clientel - it isn't worth it.  I get customers from all over the world, so it isn't a matter of reach and visibility.

Plus, every update needs the 'special' attention to contact someone at the MP and upload the new version and all of the hassle that goes with it.  I make updates currently simply by email distributing registered users, updating my web page, and copying the new files to my server.  There is no wait, no muss, no fuss.

Oh, and the 50/50 must be new as I remember it was 40/60 nonexclusive previously.  Nonetheless, I make about $20-40/mo here with several products.  I make $300-$500/mo with one single plugin - there is another and another soon to be released.  Again, you do the math. :)

Robert

Quote - I've been always been confused by the very concept of an ownership statement and  what purpose it actually serves.

If it's meant as a form of protectionism for a store and an artist, then it's about usefull as an invisible frog called Brian. If someone wants to steal your work a statement doesn't protect you or the store.  They will do it anyway.

If it's designed to be a sytem to slow down store submissions, then stores (not just here) should say so. I think using Blackheart's idea of quality control is much better one.

it's like the additional licences that are creeping in on top of the roisty one. While these are supposed to offer additional terms to the buyer again they don't.

Both just add an increased level of red-tape to whats supposed to be a fun hobby.

So my next product will say drawn by the cat and the licence will only let you use it on a wednesday when the moon is purple and being roundly rogered by mars. That makes a lot more than some of the rules :)

The ownership statement is more about protecting other people's copyright than the merchant's.  This ensures that the work is not based upon someone elses work and copyright to protect 'you' (supposedly) and most especially Bondware.  Of course, these things can get complicated.  For instance, on my Futeinokatana product, I used 'Permission Free' Dover Publication images as the basis for parts of my textures.  But I did use more than ten, so it was expect to require permission to go ahead and since Renderosity was a little neurotic at the time, I had to go through an entire process to contact Dover further and have them detail their license on these images and send that info back here before acceptance.

It does make the process rather tedious, especially if you are drawing from many resources.  In my case, it was easier to use the available family insignias than to recreate each one by hand (some of which being very detailed) and these available resources are not under copyright/trademark restrictions (besides the one numerical limitation requiring permission - which was granted).

One starts to feel like a middle man rather than the producer and seller.  I'd rather have the final say and control over the processes. :)

John, You can always contact the tester directly or contact Debbie M. or myslef directly by E-Mail or Site Mail. No need to really hit a topic discussion forum such as this with this subject unless your looking for support from the community. This post really doesnt belong in this forum since this is a topic discussion forum for poser issues and not marketplace vendor issues such as this.

Your vendor forum access was removed due to the fact that you run a competing brokering site.

Not to step on toes, Clint, I respect your job and the work you do and definetly all the help you've given me over the years, but what would JH do if he had merchant forum access?

spy?

how?

he could just...wait till an item is launched and make a similar product like daz does anyways.

In response to Valerian70 i think it was....yeah,.... confusion with some ...HUUUUH?! factored in LOL.

---So, hypothetical...if he'd put it in his name and split it with mrsparky that way, would the terms of use, etc be the exact same and under the same restrictions?

I gues I just haven't sold through r'osity in so long I'm out of touch with the rules and why they are on such a strict level.

That or I still remember when r'osity was more of a community than a business corperation and I don't mean that in a hateful or spiteful way, you guys gatta pay the bills just like us.

If he'd put the item in the RMP like this one:
http://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/index.php?ViewProduct=46488 (shameless plug!)

Only it was:
Vendors:
JHoagland
MrSparky

Then you could put in the Read Me:
All of the content in this package was created by JHoagland and MrSparky

As it is under their working name of Vanishing Point then it has to read:
All of the content in this package was created by VanishingPoint

That's assuming they used no resources in the making of the product.

They have recently tightened up on the Read Me file rules being followed.  Every tester had their own take on what was and what wasn't acceptable so to prevent the "Well Tester X let Product A through with that Read Me and now Tester Z says it is wrong and I need to redo it.  Not Fair!" situation they have set the rules in stone.  I suppose it's like anything if enough people bend the rules the rules get ever tighter until there is no room for manoeuver (sp?).

Hope that makes it a bit clearer - I'm not the greatest at explaining stuff - soemthing gets lost between brain and fingertip ;o)

no it's quite clear.

and i can understand every user thinking they just passed the bar cuz they are about to sell something, which in the US nearly makes you a business or whatever...but

honestly

who cares?

VP, BVH, purpleMan, Lygher, telelphon232343423man

if it's sexy and i have money, i'ma buy. /shrug

btw, your prouduct is awesome for under $20, but i have no money, or that mode, plus i'm a fantasy whore :D

LOL.............I know the no money thing ;o)  The RMP just sucks me dry!

It'sall Bea's doing I couldn;t model my way out of a paper bag with a hole in each end.  I just do the fun pixel pushing stuff and leave the really tough stuff to people with patience!  I have immense respect for anyone who can model because it is a completely closed book to me.

Thanks for the compliment though, I appreciate it!

/add to friends/  you do good "pixel pushing"

that's my immortal downfall, couldn't texture something if God made me with a lightning rod in my head and put me in a room full of Tesla Coil lightning generators.

so i feel your pain.

wanna work on something? LOL.

I'm open to offers ;o)

That takes me back some - good old Nicolae Tesla, think i'm showing my advancing years here gulps

And once Again I thoroughly derail a thread................muhahahahahahahahaha

yes but you had help and hey, i knew well of mr. tesla and his shocky toy at 18 so just go with that and we'll ignore age LMAO victory of the people.

shoot me an e-mail, sure we can come up with a project.

Site Mail (ICK!) sent.

I concur with Clint. This topic is concerning internal store policies and nothing to do with the Poser forum.