I knew I had seen the outfit somewhere before.

STORM :thumbupboth:

Now we just need a poser version of Halle Barre to stick in it! LOL

COOL!! :D

Who is Halle Berry?  Never heard of her.
DPH

Uh? X-MEN, X-MEN II, X-MEN III, MONSTER BALL, 007, ..........

Haven't been to a movie in years, waste of money when I've got cable.
DPH

I'm the same way.  I don't go to movies because they're a waste of money when i cab watch DVDs on my computer.

 X-men has been on cable a few times (but so far 2 and 3 haven't.

That's kind of funny!

I don't like Haly Berry, you might have seen her in the flinstones the non catoon one.

Quote - Uh? X-MEN, X-MEN II, X-MEN III, MONSTER BALL, 007, ..........

She probably burned the Catwoman costume.

I first noticed her in "Boomerang", an Eddie Murphy movie.
I said to myself, "Who is this goddess?!?"

She was also in the Flintstones movie.

And she was in the movie 'Swordfish' (topless, if you're interested).

I don't care what the critics say, I thought Catwoman was kind of cool.  She rocks as Storm in the X-men movies and she was awesome in Swordfish...and Hugh Jackman was pretty damn hot playing golf in a towel as well! :woot:  Yeah, yeah, he's great as Wolverine also. hahaha

I just think it's interesting that V3 has Versace clothes! Ummm, is that, you know, legal? :ohmy:

I saw in a thread at DAZ3D some free V3 head morph with famous stars likeness but I think Halle Berry was not there... neither in 3D Celebrities

****** YUM ******

Quote - I saw in a thread at DAZ3D some free V3 head morph with famous stars likeness but I think Halle Berry was not there... neither in 3D Celebrities

 

****** YUM ******

Oh man, move your elbow Miss Berry.

I love halle, but the animated scene in "catwoman" (where the animated figure was jumping around the walls of a bank or library or something) was the worst I've seen in a long time. it looked like they did the figure in poser 4, then pasted it as a separate track, over the track where the camera pans around the interior.

Several as shanim clothing items come from anime drawings (electromelt for example was orriginally a shirow illustration), and a several other items in the marketplace here come from fantasy artists (The Others - Hell Guard for example).

So I wouldn't suprised if that item was modelled off of the Halle Berry fashion shoot.

:ohmy:  I have that outfit. Er, the Daz one, not the Versace. Hope it's okay to use in other than fan art.

I do give her storm yes, she was good in that role, it's not so much her acting as her attitued in life (of course who the heck knows what she's really like). She is a beautiful woman though that much is the truth for sure!

I'll use it in any art. Either that or get my money back...lol

I wonder whether some designer copied the outfit from the daz site to make the outfit for Ms Berry. Love esther

Quote - I wonder whether some designer copied the outfit from the daz site to make the outfit for Ms Berry. Love esther

Or vice versa.

It could be either. Love esther

Quote - I knew I had seen the outfit somewhere before.

Isn't the answer to which came first right here? Good grief. The real clothing took time to design, make, photograph, print, and distribute. The knockoff appeared a few weeks ago. Versace is getting their style ideas from the Draper Mimics? I don't think so.

M

IMHO I think the modeller toke the idea from the Versace outfit, not the opposite

Tempted to try to model a V3 Halle Berry morph, but... ooff... useless

So if this is a Versace knockoff can I use it legally ? 

As far as I know clothing designs can not be copywrited, but in general anything you buy from DAZ is useable in commercial renders (other than the infamous Anna Marie Vickie morph) so yes, you can use it.

Sarah

"So if this is a Versace knockoff can I use it legally ?" 

Now that you bring it up, I wonder.

The Versace ad ran in all the main fashion mags internationally (Vanity Fair etc.). So say for instance you get a commercial commission to create a render for a car company advertising a new product and part of that render includes a Vicky model posing against a 3D model of the car and wearing this Daz outfit in the same colours. The car company places the ad in international magazines and Versace sees it and complains that there is an infringement of their design.

I know it is unlikely, and it will be argued that clothes are sourced from all sorts of places to clad models for real and virtual shoots., but what would be the situation if Versace got really stubborn about it?

Just curious.

STORM

well couldn't you dress a real model in a versace outfit and have her advertise for a car company without asking versace? Anyway these are just pixels. not real people that we depict with poser. Love esther

If you used a real model wearing the real Versace outfit you would have bought their clothes, they would have profited and that (ad photograph) would be a fair usage of their product and I doubt if they would have complaints.

But in the above case it is a virtual outfit made and sold by Daz for profit and that outfit is an exact copy of the Versace outfit. In other words Daz have imitated the Versace design and are profiting from it and Versace might feel annoyed about that.

I dunno, it would probably never happen and I defiantly do not want to start a huge thread on the issue but I am curious about the copyright/intellectual property issue now that it raises its head.

STORM

Does that mean you couldn't make a painting of a girl wearing the clothing, and sell the painting. Well i suppose the girl would have had to have bought the outfit, but you might not know the girl at all, just see her walking past and decide to paint her?? Love esther

There is a huge industry for knock-off of dresses worn to the Oscar's, etc. And the people who copy the original dresses make a hefty profit, yet the original Designer can't do anything about it, because clothing design is not Copyriteable (or however that's spelled). The DAZ outfit isn't even real, I really don't think there could be a problem with it.

Sarah

Perhaps this should be asked in the copyright forum. Maybe someone there would know. Or if not, at least they'd be able to point us in the direction of some answers.

"Perhaps this should be asked in the copyright forum. Maybe someone there would know. Or if not, at least they'd be able to point us in the direction of some answers."

And maybe it's time for a REALITY check!  We're talking about a digital figure, not a REAL piece of clothig.  Quit being ridiculous, sometimnes you people are somply unbelievable.
DPH

You might be surprised at how some people act over things that me & you & other folks consider "ridiculous". :-)

And if you wanna see "unbelievable" check out the "Do I Look Shady?" thread over at Poser Pros.

If it's really that worrisome, then simply attache an acknowledgement crediting Verscace, or what ever their name, to whatevere render you do, and that is that.  Now company is going to BITCH over FREE advertising.  And worrying so much.

Even if they do object, you can always plead that whatever you did was done in good faith, which it is.  You bought a legitamate product from a legitamate vendor, in a recognized marketplace.  More than that, nobody has a right to expect from you.
DPH

The outfit might look like a Versace but it's construction could not possibly be the same. Not unless, of course, Daz3D modeled all the slopers, the hems and the fabrics exactly like the Original. Versace can't exclude anyone from using similar colors either. It's a knock off, not a Versace. Versace doesn't own the copyright to everything that looks like a Versace.

Not being a fashion fan - I don't know if a dress design can be copied or not. I asume this like what supermarkets do when something becomes popular.

As for the issue of some folks being overboard on this - yes the majority of us don't need to worry. But for some artists here, stuff like this important. If you rendered a piece for a magazine and theres any issues over trademark, copyright or whatever you may not get paid.  

The outfit is perfectly legal, without any sort of risk in its use or sale.

Companies complain about free advertising all the time, however. There is a difference between good publicity and bad publicity. The "there is no bad publicity" thing is no longer applicable.

For future reference:  The only times this would fall into issue would be if the particular set was specifically sold in such a way as to imply or suggest that the item in question was created by or sanctioned by Versace.

Ah, I see. Hard to tell sometimes, especially with real world items.

To put the shoe on the other foot, so to speak, I wonder what would be the case if I as a modeller made a cool new outfit with a unique design and Versace copied it for real world clothes and made a fortune out of it.

Would I be entitled to protect my design concept? Would I be able to protect my design and original concept from being used by them or others? Do I have any rights as regards the copyright to the design? Do I have any intellectual property rights at all?

Just curious, maybe someone has some insights?

Regards

STORM

Is there life after death?
Is this world real, or just a figment of our immagination?
Do any of us really exist, or do we just think that we do?
What is real, and what is delusion?
What is logic, and what is fallacy?
Where does reality end, and delusion begin?

These are the questions that we shouldbe asking ourselves!  These are the burning issues of our times!!!

David P. Hoadley

Hmm, that's tricky. I'd ask in the copwrite forum, but I think they would be able to copy, or say they were inspired by your design. I belive it would fall in the clothing can not be copywrited area, but you could always sue Versace, or whomever. Mind you, I am no copywrite expert, I just took a few classes in fashion design :-)

Sarah

Why are you SHOUTING dphoadley?Are you DEAF?

And why do you insist on sharing your irrelevant philosophical meanderings and quotes in this thread?

You remind me of Ron Knights. 

Thanks for your answer elzoejam. It so happens I know someone who uses 3D and 2D to conceptualise fashion design ideas and we got to discussing this very issue the other night after I put the Versace comparison up. The question naturally arose about design drawings/3D renderings and their copyright. Since there are many talented and original designers in the marketplace and in the freestuff area that I have watched here over many years (since Willows time) I just wonder do they have a right to their ideas if a fashion house or other manufacturer decided to copy them. That's all.

Over and out dphoadley

Regards

STORM

Storm -  I would assume you will have the same rights as if someone copied your mesh/design or made a paper model from it. Or does a copyright or trademark of a design change if a different form of material is used to make it ?

That’s the problem mrsparky the copying is not in the same media type, i.e. mesh to mesh.

For instance if a toy maker like Mattel decided some artists CG character and outfit would make a great new plastic toy product what is to stop them?

I believe there is protection and copyright rights for Film Characters like Lord of the Rings Characters and Harry Potter Characters etc.and Mattel and others have to pay to use them or likenesses of them, but what about ordinary 3D designers and merchants. Can they protect their ideas in the same way, and if they can, can clothing designers too?

Regards

STORM

Why must everything be made so complicated, and in a thread whose original intent was to be farcically amusing.   Protect your intellectual property the same way that novelist do: copywrite it.  Tarzan is a universally recognized figure, but he's also copywritten property of ERB Inc.  Edgar Rice Burroughs went so far as to incorporate himself just to insure that his share of the royalties would be more commiserate with his efforts.
David P. Hoadley

Quote - Why must everything be made so complicated, and in a thread whose original intent was to be farcically amusing.   Protect your intellectual property the same way that novelist do: copywrite it.  Tarzan is a universally recognized figure, but he's also copywritten property of ERB Inc.  Edgar Rice Burroughs went so far as to incorporate himself just to insure that his share of the royalties would be more commiserate with his efforts.
David P. Hoadley

Storm is right, you do sound a lot like Ron Nights.  Why do you alow a forum like this to work you up so much?  It doesn't affect anyones life very dramatically, if a forum bothers you then your free to express your opinion but please don't force your personal philosophy onto others.  Just so you know, this is not an attack on you or your personal philosophies but means to tell you that if you are bothered by a forums content you're always free to not be bothered by it by not reading it and doing something else.

BorgBoy7

No malice was intended in the above message, any malice percieved was not intended.
Resistance is futile...

Who the heck is Ron Nights?
DPH

Attached Link: http://www.ronknights.com/

Here is the problem and the difference with the ERB type of copyright.
Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote books which he allowed the public to read and indeed resell when finished with them. He never allowed the public to use the characters created by him in those books or to use his words and intellectual copyright material in any other way, thus retaining full copyright control over his work and its derivative rights such as film and other and differing media usage from which he profited.

An artist at any of the market sites does much more than EHB. He or she provides the original material for legal reuse and commercial resale through other media, i.e. renderings etc..

From the Rendo licence:

"The Artist (Author) retains all copyrights to the enclosed materials. The Buyer is not purchasing the contents, only the right to use the contents. The Buyer may not redistribute this archive file, inwhole or in part. The Buyer may not store it any place on a network or on the Internet where it may be referenced by a third party. Buyer acquires the copyright to any derivative works created using this work, provided none of the original materials can be extracted from the derivative work by any means.
If Artist can show that any of the original material can be extracted from Buyer's derivative work, Artist can demand both the original and derivative work, and all copies thereof be deleted. For example, Buyer cannot make an image of a texture map mapped to a flat plane, such that the original texture map can be cut & pasted from the image. This is designed to protect the Artist from Buyers releasing work, which lets other users obtain the copyrighted material, and is not meant to infringe upon the artistic endeavours of the Buyer. Buyer may not make any MetaStream animation files with the enclosed materials, until this format can protect the original materials from being extracted. Items sold at Renderosity may not be used for illegal purposes."

So what does this mean.

1. If a games developer sees a great character here (think Laura Croft stuff) he can use a purchased Market character for any games product he wants to develop so long as the original meshes and textures can’t be extracted. Thus the artist (who still owns copyright) cannot earn a penny out of it. Indeed if the Games developer seriously enhances the product the Artists original copyright might no longer even apply to the new character. And the derivative rights such as film (based on the game plot and enhanced character) will probably belong to the games developer and not the original artist
2. A toy maker like Mattel can take a Marketplace character, pose it and do some poly subdivision on it and run it through a Cad-Cam Rapid prototyping machine and hey presto brand new Toy. Again since the original mesh and textures cannot be reverse-engineered from the toy, Mattel can legaly do this. Again with enhancement even the artist's original copyright may not apply. One of the chief toy-prototypers for Mattel used to post in the Rhino Forum here some years ago about the process, not that I am in any way suggesting that he would do this.
3. A clothing designer can do the same as the above, and a myriad of other idea-hungry manufacturers can do the same with any of the commercial products and most of the free ones.

And the above applies to the legal scrupulous manufacturers who would at least buy one copy of the product from the artist, Although with most products under $30 it is dirt cheap in terms of development costs.

But there seems to be a serious deficiency in the licensing on all of these products in that all of them can be legally used for the creation of a whole lot of products that are potentially very high earners with the original artist getting ZERO in royalties despite retaining copyright. Seems to me the thing is a bit of a mess.

And with the talents and product diversity of many of the manufacturers increasing, the attractiveness of such products to manufacturers with other plans for them is becoming obvious.

Regards
STORM

lets focus people we need a halle barry morph for v3.i came close last night but i cant get her forhead right.lets do this.