Attached Link: http://poserpros.daz3d.com/store/viewitem.php?selitem=10006

Well, if anyone is interested, you can get the same thing free from me. And better made.

Sorry if that sounds nasty, but this to me is a product that is violating someone's copyright, and shouldn't be allowed to be sold.

Helgard

Attached Link: http://www.vanishingpoint.biz/freestuff.asp?ClassificationID=5

What the frell? The model looks exactly the same as yours. The only differences i see are the door opens differently. shurgs Your model and MrSparky's texture rock. Was wondering what happened to the moviemesh site? Or is that not allowed to be asked or old news? Sorry. Am still new to the community here.

Thanks Helgard. Don't forget you had explict permission from D.Protocor to convert his mesh. I recall this because this was one of the first freebies we ever worked on together and I was just starting out in Poserdom.    

I'm sure Gaurie at Pros will check this one carefully and make sure theres nothing there that shouldn't be there. 

Cyberdoc - The movie mesh site [http://members.ozemail.com.au/~dproc/] seems to be down. Thanks for the comment  on the textures.   

For the record, I have compared the meshes between Helgard's APC and Pulse Rifle and the ones on sale at PP. While I'm not about to make comments about comparisons between the two for quality - I can say that the meshes are completely different.

Also, there is enough of a difference in the ones in the store and the ones from the movies (I've done some research to source some clear images of the models) for them to fall under the "inspired by" category. They are not direct copies. There is enough of a change in the basic design, I feel, for them to be sold.

Helgard if you want to dispute this then please take this up over at PP (since this is where they are sold) where I would be happy to discuss this further. I only became aware of this post when it was pointed out to me.

Translation : Our bottom line is more important than our ethics.

Why is it unethical to sell 'inspired by' products? Does that make it unethical to create them as well? Wouldn't that be a double standard?

I agree with Xena- selling "inspired by" products has always been allowed in the marketplace sites, provided the product does not use any copyrighted names or logos. I don't think it's "unethical" to allow these products... though I'm not sure why someone would take the time to make their own version of the APC when the one at Vanishing Point is "Aliens" branded and is free. :)
 
And the admins at PoserPros shouldn't put themselves in a position where they're telling merchants not to sell an item because a similar version already exists and is offered for free.
 
--John

There are however, many of these sorts of products throughout the Poser world. Some of the most popular modelers have this in their key works, like Aery Soul's electroment and Pretty3d's Other's - Hell Guard.

If the original makers of the works these were based upon filed suit, the modeler's might find themselves on unsteady ground. But it's not clear to me how unsteady that would be.

As for a double standard, I don't see that. Poserpros and Renderosity are, to my knowledge, run by different corporations. disagreeing with a competitor is not a double standard - its a reason to be in business.

Oh boy, this is a tricky one. Helgard, your work has always been jaw-dropping, and I have frequently played with one of your creations (hmm... maybe I could have said that better...).

It's not fair to talk about two differetn companies different policies as though they were showing some proof of double standards. Renderosity does not allow objects which are inspired by/copies of movie items. Poser Pros doesn't. Renderosity does not allow sales of 'erotic' items here in the market place. Renerotica does. These are not double standards. Simply Different stores operating different policies.

Looking at the models compared to the photos, whilst they clearly HAVE been inspired by the movie vehicle and weapons (and say as much in their description), there are little differences. Whether that's down to their lack of reference images when modeling, their deficiency as a modeler, or their artistic choice to do it a little differently, I don't know. Fact is, it's not identical. Neither the modeler nor guarie is claiming that the models are NOT based on the Aliens films (the vendor states explicitly otherwise) - guaries simply states that they are not 'direct copies', which is true.

For what it's worth, I'm not sure how any fan model of a real-world item could be considered a 'direct copy', unless they got hold of some incredibly detailed blueprints from the original model-maker's workshop and built their mesh from there. Any fan-work is going to be inspired by, rather than complete lift.

I have to be honest, I'm not entirely sure what your source of grief here is, Helgard. You can't complain about two different store's different operating policies and call them double standards, because it isn't. The guy's work isn't a rip-off of yours, so there's no copyright violation there. And no-one has claimed these models are original designs, so there's not a bone of contention there, either.

If I've missed something, feel free to explain it, though. :)

jonthecelt

Jonthecelt,

May I sell a model of a Star Wars X-wing fighter on any of the main Poser sites: Renderosity, Poserpros, DAZ, RDNA, etc?

No, because that is a copyrighted design. If I tried to sell anything as obvious as that, I would be told I cannot sell it because of copyright violations, but selling a design from Aliens is allowed?

The criteria is: Would a reasonable person think that this was the design from the movie?

Yes, despite the small differences, it is the model from the movie, not a work of the imagination. And according to the accepted internet "fan based" concept, these things are allowed, by George Lucas and others, as long as people do not make profit from it.

You can do your own research, but here is a quote from a legal site:
"U.S. Copyright law is quite explicit that the making of what are called "derivative works" -- works based or derived from another copyrighted work -- is the exclusive province of the owner of the original work. This is true even though the making of these new works is a highly creative process."

Helgard

I know that Renderosity is definte about the copyright thing - I remember some of the renaming that you used to do in order to site your freebies here ;) - but are you so sure about other places? I mean, if PoserPros has let this Aliens set go on sale - where the vendor explicitly states that these are taken fro the movies - is it possible that other sets, from yourself or other people, might also be welcome there?

It's entirely possible that I'm wrong. If so, then this IS a double-standard, by allowing some vendors to sell their products, and not yourself. however, if that's the case, then it's a PoserPros issue (since they're the ones operating like this) rather than a Renderosity one, and I'd recommend opening up a thread like this over there.

The fan-model thing, ragarding copyright and profit-making, is fair enough, I see your point there also. I'm not sure I'm qualified enough to judge whether or not the Aliens set at PoserPros comes close enough to the original pieces to be removed by this - equally, I'm not saying that they should be kept up.

Of course, there is another way to look at this. Maybe your work is TOO good, and too close to the original, to be allowed to sell. you're just too skilled a modeler. ;)

jonthecelt

Quote - ...Renderosity does not allow objects which are inspired by/copies of movie items... If I've missed something, feel free to explain it, though. :)

Well, you have missed one thing, since you claim that Renderosity doesn't allow objects which are inspired by or copies of movie items: http://market.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/index.php?ViewProduct=14830 For example. Keep in mind that not only is this a very clear duplicate of the hole seen in Peter Jackson's LoTR trilogy, it's also using the name 'Hobbit' which is almost universally agreed upon as a made up word by J,R.R. -- and a registered trademark of the Tolkein foundation. (The OED is continually opening reinvestigations into the possibility it occured once on an ancient list of names for kinds of spirit but has remained inconclusive.) Also keep in mind that Renderosity doesn't follow trademark law. Instead they ignore trademark law counting on the merchants to be too poor to do anything about it when their trademarks are violated and simultaneously counting on themselves to be to small to be noticed by the big guys who do have the money. Of course this is going to bite them on the arse. (I don't mean 'it eventually might', I mean I'm having my attorney look into all I can have done about the two trademark violations against my common law trademarks that I know of in the RMP -- I have a trademark on both Puck and Aeon-- so it will unless they start complying with US law).

Quote - No, because that is a copyrighted design. If I tried to sell anything as obvious as that, I would be told I cannot sell it because of copyright violations, but selling a design from Aliens is allowed?

The criteria is: Would a reasonable person think that this was the design from the movie?

Yes, despite the small differences, it is the model from the movie, not a work of the imagination. And according to the accepted internet "fan based" concept, these things are allowed, by George Lucas and others, as long as people do not make profit from it.

You can do your own research, but here is a quote from a legal site:
"U.S. Copyright law is quite explicit that the making of what are called "derivative works" -- works based or derived from another copyrighted work -- is the exclusive province of the owner of the original work. This is true even though the making of these new works is a highly creative process."

This is true. Notice what I've released as freebies in the past. Because of Paramount's ownership of Star Trek, I avoided all Star Trek stuff, despite Erynoka's pleas, while gleefully making Lucasfilm stuff. Why? Because Lucasfilm gave thumbs-up on it all provided it was not for profit, while Paramount was pretty paranoid about anything of their becoming fan-art (which, after enough Data/Geordie slash, might have even been warranted a little, eww B^) Close observers might note that I reproduced a disruptor pistol -- but in my defence it's an Orkan disruptor. The prop was produced for the Star Trek 2 tv series (which never happened) and then got shelved and reused in an episode of Mork & Mindy. So maybe it can be used as a Klingon disruptor, but it's sheer coincidence B^)

not to mention spock/kirk slash (can one say that here?) :lol: although I ain't a lawyer, I think it's definitiely true that none of us have any legal standing in these cases (unless we're distributing the infringing item). hence the various marketplace sites have a "caveat emptor" policy, which mean in part that they won't pull these items unless the actual copyright holder or trademark owner sends them an official notice in accord with the DMCA, no matter how obvious to us the infringement.

The poor legal footing also applies to work put out for free.

Copyright and trademark both do not care if the work is free or commercial - if it violates copyright and / or trademark, it violates it equally either way.

The holder of a copyright can choose to ignore your violation at no risk to them, but the holder of a trademark will lose that trademark if they fail to sue you. Even for work you put out for free.

This might very well apply to the items in the images I posted earlier in the thread just as much as the items in main discussion. Art can be violated like this as well - suits in music are common, and sometimes over as little as a single stanza or even just four notes.

I suppose making freebies isn't  a violation (boy would I be in hot water), since from the above statements, derivitives are 'bad' (and lack of talent in reproducing an exact copy wouldn't cover ya..;) sheesh.

"I have compared the meshes between Helgard's APC and Pulse Rifle"

Just 18 minutes between our posts and replying. Man thats some seriously powerfull copyright controls systems you have there. Didn't know you guys ran IBM Blue Genes for your desk tops :)

Quote - The poor legal footing also applies to work put out for free.

Copyright and trademark both do not care if the work is free or commercial...

Actually, you're 100% right with copyright, but being noncommercial is a valid and common defence against trademark violation (not necessarily for free, there's a difference -- no one has to pay to watch an advert, but they are definitely commercial. that's why they're called 'commercials'). See, the trademark laws have nothing to do with any sort of inherent right of the 'creator' of the mark to use it, they are based around the idea that the mark establishes a reputation, and that other attempts to use the mark constitute a form of fraud and effectively a forgery. When there's no potential for commercial gain, it's safe from trademark prosecution. However, it should be noted that that depends on who's serving up the freebies: - If someone who has only ever done freebies does it and has nothing commercial on their site whatsoever nor included in the download, and especially if they release it as open source, it's safe. - If someone who has only ever done freebies but has google ads on the download page, it's not. - If someone who ios like me, running a website that offers subscription services or a store does it, even free, it's not noncommercial. It's seen as a giveaway traffic draw. It'd be like if, for instance, the store was giving away free drawings of Spider Man by a non-Marvel artist, just some guy from town... if this guy sat out on the street and gave them away it'd be fine (provided he didn't copy any actual Spider-Man drawings), but doing it to get people to come down to a store is another story. It's not the pricetag, it's the reason. This may be why, by the bye, Renderosity stopped allowing knockoffs in the Free Stuff list. If you think about it, the RFS listing is a deliberate tool to draw traffic to the RO website, which then hosts the RMP to make money. Get it? Thus they never had to worry about copyright, because they aren't hosting it, but it's their webspite spitting out 'Aliens' or 'Star Wars' or Star Trek' -- which is a trademarked term they're serving up, for a traffic-draw portion of a commercial site.

"Double Standards"

Aren't they those tall poles that fly two different flags??

(And now I've introduced the idea, you all have my full permission to produce a prop of a "double standard", as long as you include the phrase "inspired by an idea by Diolma" somewhere in the read-me...)

:biggrin:

(or not as the case may be. I really don't care).

Cheers,
Diolma

Quote - > Quote - The poor legal footing also applies to work put out for free.

Copyright and trademark both do not care if the work is free or commercial...

Actually, you're 100% right with copyright, but being noncommercial is a valid and common defence against trademark violation.

No I'm fairly certain this is true for both copyright and trademark.

If you have some case law pointing otherwise, I'd like to see it. I have westlaw and lexisnexus access, so I just need the case citation.

If you don't have westlaw, lexus nexus, or a law library, you can start here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Trademark

See also:
http://uscode.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00001114----000-.html

And note that it lists mere 'distribution' along with sale and other terms.

although I ain't a lawyer, being non-commercial is a common defence, only in that the infringer is hoping for a reduced penalty by using that as a mitigating circumstance. it's like the difference between stealing bread because one hasn't got any money, or just stealing bread for fun. they're both still illegal.

A common defense in popular culture mythology - which is very different from actual law.

Reality would be more that if you have no money of your own, and there is no one connected to your acts that has nay money, you are fairly judgment proof - I can sue you, but I will never be able to collect.

The insanity plea is like that - a lot of people believe it is a defense, it is actually something defendants try very hard to avoid, as it leads to indefinate sentences, often after which the regular sentence is still imposed. Further, 'avoiding all responsibility by insanity' is nearly impossible to manage. Yet popular culture believes these things are frequent defenses.

Law is full of situations like this.

hmm..well, my models are so bad, I could declare them satire, and thus protected speech. However, I dunno if that would be a copyright violation worth persuing, since I don't (and will never) sell anything I make. Just give it away..;) Like Willy Sutton, lawsuits go where the money is..;)

As far as PP's respect for trademark/copyright is concerned, one should keep in mind that they are owned by DAZ, which has never allowed originality to interfere with cushy ripoffs. PP has morphed gracefully into the back alley of DAZ's retro Whitechapel.

Helgard's concern is pretty clear to me: His models are free because they are not original work but copies. The PP knockoffs are trying to capitalize on someone else's work -- not his, the originals. It's what we used to call an "ethical issue" back when Americans had "ethics."

M

I know this point has probably been beaten to death by now, but how can Turbo Squid openly sell Star Wars and Star Trek items with the full copyrighted names, logos, and insignias?
We're complaining about one or two items at PoserPros or Renderosity, yet TS has pages and pages of copyrighted items for sale. Just because TS does something doesn't make it right, but in the scheme of things, I would think they would be a bigger "target" than someone like PoserPros, who may only be selling one product.
 
--John

You guys could always just turn them all in for infringement to the copyright owners, stand back and watch the fight play out in court, then come back here and gloat. Otherwise you're just wasting keystrokes on the preverbial deceased equine....

Turbo Squid is notoriously lax in its policing. I've found (and reported) at least one vendor attempting to sell Poser's free figures for sums of around $100 apiece - as models ready-rigged for Poser!!!

jonthecelt