I've noticed a very disturbing trend in the Carrara gallery lately. Many, many people are posting images with content purchased or obtained from sources such as DAZ and other vendors. It is disingenuous to post these renders without giving credit to the creator of the content. I thought it was about time that someone spoke up because this was rare in the past, and now it seems to be the norm. If someone wants to create renders using other artists' models, I don't have a problem with that. But, not giving them credit for their work is essentially claiming that it is your own.

I totally agree with you on this Patrick. I don't use other artist's models or mats very often because I enjoy making my own, but when I do, I give credit where credit is due. It's too bad that so many new would-be artists are blithly unaware of, or ignore the ethics involved in rightfully acknowledging the contributions of other artists.

If its a free object then of course credit should be given but if you've paid for content from Daz or the like, then I don't see why. A modeler should receive either recognition or cash, I seen no reason for both. Once you've paid for a model then why should you be obligated to provide free advertising for that modeler and store?

I agree with Rids. You should be under no obligation to credit the supplier of paid content. Should advertisers credit the artist when they use images they purchased from stock agencies? How ridiculous. I think the real objection here is to people who use Carrara to render purchased content. I know some people get their panties in a twist over non-modelers using the software in an "impure" manner, but for the life of me, I can't figure out why they care. Are they afraid that these people want to get credit for models they didn't create? Is 3d art only legitimate if only one person has produced everything, from model to textures to lighting to composition, etc.... In truth I think such a person who can do it all well is rare indeed, and as such they should be admired. But don't completely discount those who haven't been blessed with such skill. Modelers are not the only artists involved in 3d productions, and there are real, valuable skills involved in lighting, framing, and animation that are irrelevent to who created the model. If you look at Carrara, you may notice that there are a lot of tabs other than the modeling workspace, and that modeling is not the only legitimate or expected use of the software. Making any assumptions about the content in a 3d image or animation is foolish on the part of the viewer, imo. If you prefer to create 100 percent of your content and use zero post-processing then go ahead and do it, and brag it up if you're good at it. I just don't see the need to then go sneering at people who don't have modeling abilities, but still enjoy other aspects of creating 3d imagery.

"I think the real objection here is to people who use Carrara to render purchased content."

I clearly stated that I didn't have any problem with using the content, just that you shouldn't take credit for someone else's work.

"I just don't see the need to then go sneering at people who don't have modeling abilities, but still enjoy other aspects of creating 3d imagery."

Again, no objection to using content or sneering at those who do. Just give credit when it is due.

Several years ago this didn't happen here, people always stated where they came by objects that they didn't create themselves. The protocol was that if you didn't state that you got an object from somewhere else, then you created it yourself.

"A modeler should receive either recognition or cash, I seen no reason for both"

I'm amazed at this comment. So you buy a vehicle from 3D02, render it and then let everyone think you modeled it. I hope you don't use these tactics when applying for job somewhere, it would be considered fraud.

I also don't feel obligated to note everything I used in an image when I paid for it.  If a free item is promanently used, then it's polite to create the creator.  However, there again, it shouldn't be a requirement.  Presumably creators of free items do it because they enjoy giving (hopefully without strings attached).  If you really care about weather or not someone made, bought, or acquired for free some portion or an image, you can always ask them.  Personally, I only assume it was all made/modelled by the artist when they say so.  Seems to me that the folks doing that kind of work, have been noting it in their comments. 

Quote - "I think the real objection here is to people who use Carrara to render purchased content."

I clearly stated that I didn't have any problem with using the content, just that you shouldn't take credit for someone else's work.

Using content in a render is not imo "taking credit for someone else's work." To me the modeling and rendering are separate processes and one should not assume one from the other. > Quote - "I just don't see the need to then go sneering at people who don't have modeling abilities, but still enjoy other aspects of creating 3d imagery."

Again, no objection to using content or sneering at those who do. Just give credit when it is due.

I didn't mean to imply that you personally were doing the sneering, and I apologize if it came across that way. I was having a general rant against those who do sneer (and I've come across plenty of them). > Quote - Several years ago this didn't happen here, people always stated where they came by objects that they didn't create themselves. The protocol was that if you didn't state that you got an object from somewhere else, then you created it yourself.

It seems odd to me to make such an assumption about a render (that you modeled what you render). There is obviously a thriving market of 3d objects to be used for commercial or private usage. Using these objects is not cheating or taking advantage of anyone. > Quote - "A modeler should receive either recognition or cash, I seen no reason for both"

I'm amazed at this comment. So you buy a vehicle from 3D02, render it and then let everyone think you modeled it. I hope you don't use these tactics when applying for job somewhere, it would be considered fraud.

Why should you think they modeled it unless they specifically say so? If they specifically make that claim when they haven't modeled it, then yes, that is fraud. But simply posting a render is NOT making that claim. If I buy an image from Getty Images, and use it in an advertisement, am I guilty of fraud because I didn't take the photograph that I used in my ad, or give credit to the photographer? Why should rendering require different standards? Buying and legally using an image or object is different than making the claim that you hold the copyright. Apart from that, I can understand how misunderstandings can occur with the current gallery set-up. Where do you post an image with poser content that was rendered in another app? They only want poser renders in the poser gallery, but where do you put a poser-heavy carrara render? Carrara purists don't really want to see it as they have their own 'protocol' and get grumpy with the influx of poser pretties. I really do understand the frustration, but content is a booming business and adjustments will have to be made. Adjusting galleries would be a start -- maybe separating modeling from general rendering would help unruffle some feathers.

"They only want poser renders in the poser gallery, but where do you put a poser-heavy carrara render?"

Anytime you use more than one application, you are welcome and sometimes encouraged to post it in the Mixed Medium gallery.  That's what it's there for.  You'll see quite a few Poser-heavy images there (among other things). 

And on a side note: There's also a gallery specifically for folks who what to display their modeling skills.  Check out the 3D Modeling gallery sometime. 

Obviously the attitude of a lot of folks has changed lately. It may be the consensus among people now, that it isn't necessary to give credit. I'm saying it wasn't that way in the past.  I do wonder then, why Renderosity bothers with the vendor credit list they provide for people to check off when uploading an image. Perhaps they want to perpetuate the content business which provides income for the website? Anyway, it's still my opinion that anything not credited is considered created by the poster. I would think you would want to give credit, if for nothing more than to help advertise the person whose products you use. If I use a plugin, I always acknowledge who made it, so that others can take advantage of it as well.  Anyway, I think outside content should be credited. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Yes, a lot has changed over the years.  I've been here since before it became Renderosity.  At that time, people seldom credited anyone for their content (which used to be pretty much all free).  But then there wasn't much content available and folks typically did create all or most of their own objects, textures, etc.  I used to model objects and create textures frequently back then too.  Now I seldom do and I'm far from being alone there.  There's nothing wrong with crediting your sources if you want to and can remember were you got everything.  The purpose to the MP vendor listing is 2 fold.  1)  To make it easier to do so and 2) Yes, it does help advertise MP vendors which helps keep this site going.   As far as I know, this is all optional on your part though.  There is nothing in the MP license.txt or the TOS that says you must use the credit feature when uploading images.  It's great that you want to credit everything used in your images.  But now a days, I'd think it best to assume that the artist didn't create everything unless they specifically mention that they did or it's posted in the 3d Modeling gallery.  If you're curious about who created something or if a plugin was used, just ask the artist.  Most folks seem to be happy to tell you all about it. 

ialora: Thanks for the heads up about the galleries. There is such a long list, I hadn't noticed all the categories. I have read in posts from folks who put a high value on views, that they prefer to post to the higher traffic galleries (for obvious reasons). When I do start to post images, I'll certainly try to get then in the correct place. Patrick: I hope you don't feel like I'm beating up on you. I don't completely disagree with your point, I just differ as to whether it's disingenuous (which to me implies somewhat unethical) to post without credit. Giving credit is certainly polite and not something to discourage, and I'm all for spreading the word about high quality products. I started with photography before I became enthralled with 3d, and I must admit to becoming irritated with people who would post beautiful photographs which then later were revealed to be heavily processed and composited. It is irrational but I felt mislead because it was presented as a photo with no admittance to the post-work. I think the anger comes from the feeling that you were tricked into a faulty admiration -- you had assumed that this person possessed amazing photography skills to get this almost impossible photo, but then found out it was photoshop skill instead. I think the same applies to 3d -- you feel tricked and angry. I think the time has come where you just can't assume anything the artist hasn't told you, whatever the medium, or you'll continue to be disappointed when your assumption proves wrong. Well, I think I've rambled enough about this topic. As someone once told me, I just have to learn how to form an opinion. ;)

I hear ya on the gallery traffic issue.  Although, I believe the Mix Medium gallery has at least as high a traffic rate as the Carrara gallery on the average.  Some galleries are quite leanient about what consitutes a valid posting, so don't feel pressured on posting your image elsewhere simply because more than one program was involved in the final image. 

Personally, if I use an item that I'm particularly happy about, I will credit it in my comments reguardless of where I got it and if it was free or not.  I think a fair number of folks do too.       

"Obviously the attitude of a lot of folks has changed lately. It may be the consensus among people now, that it isn't necessary to give credit. I'm saying it wasn't that way in the past."

No, it is still the same as it was back then. I remember well, those topic threads 4 to 5 years ago, when I was a newbie, asking the same question, and the odd post once in awhile to date including this one. The majority consensus, No need to give credit for payed content. But common courtesy for free content. Just do a search in the forums and you will find those threads.

"Personally, if I use an item that I'm particularly happy about, I will credit it in my comments reguardless of where I got it and if it was free or not.  I think a fair number of folks do too."

That was pretty much the majority answer. Thats how I do it to. But, no one is obligated to give it.

If it really is the general consensus that paid content doesn't need a credit then I'm surprised and saddened. The Carrara gallery, in my view, is for sharing methods (in the spirit of help and cooperation) as well as the final image. The need to give credit where it's due is not only a courtesy to the original creators but it helps others learn from your efforts. Added to which by mentioning his creation you might just help the poor sod that modeled that widget in the foreground of your stunning render to another sale. I'd be furious if a publisher omitted to credit any of my work, even if they'd paid for it, because I make my living [ha, ha] from my work and I rely on others seeing it and knowing I did it. So, call me old-fashioned, but in my view, to not credit content (or for that matter plugins and indeed the other software used) is not only discourteous but risks an accusation of plagiarism.

When I buy a product, I don't feel obligated to help the vendor sell more everytime I use the product.  What if I did a horrible job using the product?  Would I also then be in liable for possibly costing the vendor more sales?    If I buy a model and use it in my image without crediting the modeler, that is not plagiarism.  If I buy it, use it, and state that I created it, that would be plagiarism.   When you go into a gallery to look at paintings do they list the manufacturer of the paints and canvas along with the artist's name?  Do you assume the artist created the frame, if a frame manufacturer isn't credited?  How about the brushes?  Some artists do create everything themselves, but these items are all tools and materials used to create the work.  I'm sure those companies and their employees make a living off of those sales too.  By the same token, do you have oodles of signs in your front yard helping to advertize all the tools and materials used to build your house?  Now there are times when folks will advertize the products they use, but typically they are compensated for doing so.  At the very least, they get the product at a discount or for free.   I think that's why many will credit free stuff items when used.  You got it for free, so you give the creator a mention or a thanks in exchange (even if they didn't ask for it).  A vendor gets his/her money instead, because that is what they ask for in exchange.  Anything beyond that, should be considered a bonus by the vendor and not an unwritten requirement.  If I'm really happy with an item I bought, I'll credit the vendor.  The vendor should be pleased that I am noticably happy with my purchase instead of being angry or feel slited by those who didn't credit them.  Perhaps it should be taken as a challenge to create something that will garner more praise (and free advertizing) by their customers. ;-)   

So I'm to assume that unless an artist points out exactly which bits are his/her work then the work is all by others? I don't think 'paint and brushes' are really quite the same as DAZ content, expecially in the context of display in a dedicated/forum gallery like Renderosity. Perhaps they don't do it anymore but photographers always used to say what camera and film they'd used, at least when the photo was in a professional journal. How times change.

I have worked in the film industry, You should see how many people do so much work and don't get credit.

If you feel artists have to give credit for everything, state that in your readme's. Just don't be surprised when sales drop when someone reads it and lets everyone else know that there are restictions in the readme. Daz found that one out with the Goddard set.

Users that post their renders in online galleries should describe how their scenes were created.  They don't have to mention their buying history. But just mention what apps the rendered models were imported/created from so future users who plan to buy a 3D app aren't confused if the 3D app really was used to model an entire scene or not.

"So I'm to assume that unless an artist points out exactly which bits are his/her work then the work is all by others?"

Not at all, but you also shouldn't assume they created everything themselves when no outside credit is given.  If it really matters to you, then just ask the artist. 

"I don't think 'paint and brushes' are really quite the same as DAZ content, ..."

Why not?  They are both objects that you can purchase to help create your art. 

"Users that post their renders in online galleries should describe how their scenes were created." 

Why should online galleries be different?  Online or not, when I visit a gallery, I'm there to enjoy looking at someone else's work and sometimes to get ideas and inspiration.  If I want to specifically know how something was done and/or with what, I have no problem with asking the artist.  Now I know some folks do list much of the creation process in their comments including their mood and the phase of the moon at the time.  Do I want to read about it on every image I view?  Heck no!  I've got better things to do with my too little free time.  Should everyone then be listing all that for the folks who do?  I think, only the folks who feel like it.   Boy!  You want to talk about how things have changed?  Why did posting an image in a gallery become so demanding?  You used to just post an image and folks would come view it and leave a comment if they wanted to.  Now it's like winning at the Oscar's.  You're expected to tell everyone how you made it and thank everyone who helped make it all possible.  Only you don't get a gold statue.  ;-)      

Quote - Now it's like winning at the Oscar's.  You're expected to tell everyone how you made it and thank everyone who helped make it all possible.  Only you don't get a gold statue.  ;-)

:laugh: And I imagine there are a few stinkers produced that you wouldn't want your name associated with. Since there are a few who insist we should feel obliged to give them free advertising after we purchase their products, I have to ask: How many modelers credit their inspirations? I see an awful lot of models copied from movie props, clothing designers, furniture designers, car designs, etc. If you make a car model based on a real body, you are using someone else's design (someone did design that car body, you know) and making it yours. And then some get all high and mighty about others not giving THEM credit for using their models. More of the usual selective fairness -- whatever is in my best interests. If you really believe crediting is important, than follow it through past your own self-interest and credit all who deserve it. Your list will take up a good page or two.

I wonder if the solution is not some guideline about crediting parts of the creation, but maybe just detailing what part of the image is your creation.

When I browse the gallery, what skill did the artist use, what should I be admiring or critiquing; modeling, lighting, composition, etc. Sometimes it's obvious when I look at the image (eg. untextured model on a white plane with GI lighting = modeling), but many times it's not.

I understand all artists don't generate it all from scratch. I go to movies because of a particular director and can appreciate all that the director brings to the creation without being angry at him for not spray painting a prop (even if the prop guy is uncredited). I think the difference is there I have a clear understanding of what that artist did for the work based on the role, with a lot of today's 3D artists I don't understand.

I guess I'd kind of like to see something about the artist's role in the work. Are you the modeler, lighter, texturer, story teller, all of the above? What did the posting artist add to the collection of tools and content you used to make this art?

Looks like I opened a can of worms by disagreeing :laugh:
What makes it funny is that if I post an image at rendo and I've used someone's content I do give them credit, I just don't like being obligated to do it for something I've paid for. If I create an image, I don't render it, my processor does and I don't have to give credit to my AMD 64 X2 4400 every time I post something. I see no difference there than if I used a figure from DAZ, or Renderosity for that matter, as long as I've paid a fair price for it then it should be mine to use as I please.

This all goes back to when all 3D artists were purists and had to be modelers as there just wasn't any content to use. Times have changed and so has the market, content is now becoming big business. To my mind, its the content retailers that should bear the advertising burden and not the end user. I don't think there is any other market where the end user is obligated to advertise the products they have bought, so why should 3D be any different?

I like to incorporate the credits into the image :) E

It seems to me that there is some basic misunderstanding about what is meant by 'crediting' someone else's work. Perhaps I am partly to blame with my suggestion that mentioning where you got something would give the guy another sale; I didn't mean 'free advertising' , simply acknowledging what was and what was not your work. Perhaps I'm wrong but I had thought that Renderosity was an 'artists community' and as such it was for sharing methods and helping each other. In the context of the galleries (as Eric has said in his post above),  that means making it clear what you did as the artist. How else can anyone make any valuable judgement about your work?

Another analogy would be academic or scientific papers, where the work is invariable based on the work of others. Any paper submitted for publication or peer-review would be rejected without proper references. This is an extreme example, agreed, but the prinicple is the same.

"I like to incorporate the credits into the image :)"

What a wonderfully creative idea, E! 

The Other Apps gallery does have it posted in the header to please mention what "other" app(s) it is you used, but you'll see artists who fail to mention it.  So I'm not sure if posting guidelines would make much difference.  I seem to recall that the whole idea of crediting came about when folks started making comments like "... and thank you Chuck for your cool free space ship model..."  Pretty soon others were making such comments too.  Viewers would also make comments like "What did you use to create those waves?"  And pretty soon folks started listing extra tools used and/or that postwork had been done.  Point is, we tend to follow examples much better than posted rules or guidelines.  I'm all for giving credit and providing some info on what was done.  I just think it's up to the individual artist to do if they so choose.  "Choice" being the key word.      

"Perhaps I'm wrong but I had thought that Renderosity was an 'artists community' and as such it was for sharing methods and helping each other."

Yes, but should all this sharing be done in the galleries and should it be required?  Weren't the forums created for those who wanted to share their ideas and to help others? 

Quote - Yes, but should all this sharing be done in the galleries and should it be required?  Weren't the forums created for those who wanted to share their ideas and to help others?

I never said all the sharing should be done in the galleries. Obviously the forums are the place to discuss specific issues (as we are doing now).  I wouldn't want to see giving credits as any sort of requirement for gallery posts either. I'd encourage artists to do so though. Useful assessment or criticism of work in the galleries is impossible without some idea of what the person has done for themselves and what is imported content created by others.

Quote - If you really believe crediting is important, than follow it through past your own self-interest and credit all who deserve it.

I'd like to thank the inventor of the perspective view drawing which I borrowed from.  :)

Quote - > Quote - If you really believe crediting is important, than follow it through past your own self-interest and credit all who deserve it.

I'd like to thank the inventor of the perspective view drawing which I borrowed from.  :)

There you go! Now only another few thousand to go.

Perhaps traditional 2D artists should start giving credit to all the various models they pay to pose for them? They definitely should give a detailed credit list for those “things” which exist, whether man-made or nature made, which they use to create their works without paying for their use. 

I’m sure Leonardo did not give formal credit to the model who was the basis for the Mona Lisa, so Leonardo must have lacked some artistic ethics – according to your post.

I generally make, or heavily modify any foreground models I use in my scenes.  I usually modify my Poser textures and do post work on them.

There is an assumed consideration of courtesy in giving credit when using a model which someone donates for free use, but to place a moral judgment call on those who fail – often innocently, to include this courtesy is a bit overreaching.

Those who purchase an item for inclusion in their work have no obligation to give credit to the vendor; they give credit by purchasing the item.  In any other area of commercial activity the absurdity of giving credit for the creator/seller of products would be self-evident, so why should there be such a silly practice only in the world of 3D art?

If you use a model that was given to you, then give due credit – unless it was years ago, and you don’t remember where it came from.  If it was a model of a Ford Truck, then give credit to Ford Motor Company – I doubt the modeler did that when giving the Ford model away for free.

Quote - I’m sure Leonardo did not give formal credit to the model who was the basis for the Mona Lisa, so Leonardo must have lacked some artistic ethics – according to your post.

Actually, as Vasari (writing 30 years after Leonardo's death) states that she was the wife of a Florentine businessman called  Francesco del Giocondo there's a good chance that it was well known who she was when Leonardo painted her. Anyway, I get your point.

I find this reluctance to credit others surprising. I don't regard it as a 'silly practice' for much the same reasons as Eric gives above. 

I have to say that I dont feel it obligatory either.  Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't.  There is no rhyme or reason to that.  I just finished a bryce tutorial dvd.  I did not create all of the models in the animations...most were purchased from here, there, or yon...  If someone asks me where they came from...I'd tell them.  I just dont feel that I should have to.

my .02

:)

BT

Think of giving credit these days as bragging rights.  People can brag about the hi-res models they've purchased when posting their scene.

By the way, do home builders mention what brand tools they used to construct a house?  What shop made their nails and screws?

I think giving credit should be based on what the individual, by no means should anyone feel obligated to do so whether the content is free or purchased.

However if you do use someone else’s content and they request credit or even and email with of the rendered picture this would only be fair and should be respected.

I have seen some great art created with free and purchased content and rarely do I read who all the contributors are. I like to see good art no mater if its all original or not.

Art is the creative reintegration of concretes which results in a work representing the artists sense of life (and is interpreted by the viewer via the viewers sense of life).  This creative reintegration is synergistic, and represents completely new views/thoughts which transcends a collection of models.

A specific model is generally a concrete, though there are certainly some models that can be defined as works of art in themselves.  An example might be some of the work done by a modeler/vender named Stonemason. His work (like Urban Sprawl) is so comprehensive (in a very good way) that I personally won’t purchase it, because too much of the sense of the creative is contained in his models. What is left for the 3D artist when Stonemason’s sense of Urban setting is so dominant in the scene?  If I used one of his excellent environments, I would feel strongly compelled to give him credit simply because most of what I could add would be (in my opinion) filler – not much room for originality.  In such a case he is more of a coworker artist than someone selling generic models as props – he deserves credit even if one pays for his models.

Many folks have done some fine scenes with his environments, but the scenes are really dominated by his creation, and the artwork using his comprehensive environments are so dependent on his work that they end up almost as variations of his modeling work.

A concrete would be something like the model of a chair or a book.  They are very generic, and the value they have in a work of art is dependent on how they are used in that artwork – how they are reintegrated as a whole that elicit thought and emotion from the viewer, and greatly transcend any specific model used in the scene.  The viewer doesn’t really notice a particular model when feeling the sense of a well done scene, the models are integrated into a whole, something unique and, yes, original.

Giving credit, certainly for generic models, is not so simple when it is the artist who often brings them to life!  I do think though, if someone uses a donated free model, credit should be given to the models originator.  If you purchased the model in a commercial transaction, it is the discretion of the artist to give credit.  There is little, if any, ethics involved when the models used are a commercial product.

**LCBoliou - Well said.
**

I dunno about the ethics. If it's free stuff, sure. Mostly, tho, I agree that gallery is a fun place to talk shop about an image. So I like going into technical details. There is also a backwards credit element these days. What I mean is, with all the third-party content floating around, naming the stuff I bought gives me an excuse to point at the stuff I didn't get from somewhere else and go "see, see, I modeled this part all by myself!"

I simply feel it's a nice addition to include credits when posting.  If someone sees something in an image you create and would like to use it in one of their projects, they can track it down and use it too. I consider it to be more of a service to the "community", not to promote an individual vendor. I do think that if a free item is used, you should give the creator credit. They have donated their time and talents for others to use, it's a great way to say thank you for their contribution (and often - this is the only "Thank You" they get). 

In general, I see giving credits for items that were created by someone else in your renders as a  service to the Poser/Carrara community.  For Carrara users, it's nice to see what can be done with pre-made poser content in CS.  Some of it works well, and other items don't work so well.  It would be a big plus if CS users who do credit content creators would also give an indication of how well the content imported into CS, and how much work was needed to twaek the textures, etc.

IMHO it adds a touch of class to idicate what pre made content was used for a render.

One can think of it this way: adding credits to products you purchased helps others find those products they'll also purchase which helps Renderosity stay online.

If we should have to give credit to the stuff we pay for, I think it is only right that we are paid for advertising it. I also think that these rules should be posted in big block letters on the product page besides the readme so everyone knows that is what they need to do before they buy.

I do post what modeling and texturing and lighting and so on that I do. I rarely use free stuff, to much hassel keeping track of readmes,if there is one. If that's not clear enough fo those that read my credits, too bad.

Just to be clear, credits to others in an image are not a 100% requirement.

It's also fairly well understood that rendering, texturing, modeling, etc. are different tasks that some people to better than others.  It's also fairly obvious that not everybody posts the credits of all the models that they use in their images (free or purchased).

I think it's also somewhat clear from the amount of controversy stirred up by this thread that not providing credit to others that added to an image can be frustrating to some people.

But at the moment, it's not a hard core requirement to post a credit to somebody that provided content to an image regardless of who rendered it.

This thread is cutting the edge of getting out of control so I'm going to lock it.  If there are more isses with this topic, please IM me.