With all I've been seeing lately -- not just here but all over  -- I am fast becoming of the opinion that EVERYTHING is a copyright  or trademark violation. Which makes me wonder what the point is of doing ANYTHING any more?

Well, nobody has answered my question about the copyright violation in the promo images for FaceShop.

It's my understanding that the images are used under license. I did discuss this with the MP manager.

I have to agree with the Byrdie person: Everything is a copyright violation. That's o.k, because everything is illegal anyhow; it's just a question of whether some person of some authority wants to press the issue or not.
EXAMPLE:
There is a law on 'the books' in my state (PA) that clearly states that: "All automobile operators MUST pull to the side of the road and launch a warning rocket into the sky upon sighting a cow (or other livestock) within line of sight of the roadway."
I can't ever remember hearing of anybody ticketed for this violation.
Strange as it might seem, it is also illegal, AFAIK, to actually fire military grade weaponry 'into the sky' at random from the roadside in PA.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
See a cow while driving -> go to jail ; if all of the technicalities are observed.
Seems silly doesn't it?

I'm not condoning image pirating or anything; but still...
"Let them bring legal action..." is fairly common legal advice.
So, if Arnold decided it would be worth his while to file a lawsuit against somebody for using his face in Face Shop, then he could probably force the issue. I think he has more important things to occupy his time; unless it would become some major PR issue.
Until then, I feel that it is implied (by his lack of action) that he condones the use of the image. Let him say otherwise. Nobody else has anything to do with the decision. A judge in a courtroom may or may not agree with that assessment. Until the issue actually goes before a judge, it is moot.

That all aside; and assuming that every celebrity would simultaneously decide to forbid use of their images with the application, there is still a use for Face Shop: USE YOUR OWN PHOTOGRAPHS. Ones that you do actually own the rights to (because just snapping a photograph doesn't automatically confer image ownership rights either).

Last that I heard, there's still a law on the books in Georgia (?) (southern US) which requires every able-bodied male to carry a rifle with him to church on Sunday.  I don't think that anyone has been punished for a failure to abide by that law.........at least not in the last 120 years or so.

But copyrights are a different matter.  Those laws are technically in force -- even though much of the world completely ignores them.  If you happen to live in a Westernized country -- then you might even face the possibility of penalties for breaking copyright law.

If you live in our somewhat insular little Poserite community, then you might face the total ostracism of said community for violating copyrights.  Even if you never actually face any direct monetary fines, etc. for stealing intellectual property.

If you enjoy this 3D game: then the penalty of ostracism can actually be a severe one in and of itself.

Got to love those Blue Laws. Reading through them is great laughs.

I'm already ostracised, and it has nothing to do with copyright violations. I don't live in the 'somewhat insular little Poser community' either; though I do use the application.

Please Note:  I'm the one proposing that people actually use their own photographic work (instead of someone else's) w/ the Face Shop app., in case that wasn't clear.

Almost all of my photographic textures come either from my own camera or from web texture sharing repositories (like CGTextures and Mayang). The rest are ones that were released with Poser related products that I have.

I'll accept your statement that you are currently existing in an ostracised state.  BTW - "ostracised" is a term meaning "to be compelled/forced to resemble an ostrich in form or manner".  I.E. -- to be tarred & feathered .  If that's ever happened to you, then I am personally unaware of the event.  It must have been some party.

BTW - I wasn't taking issue with your specific comments in regards to the use of photographic materials.  But I was pointing out that violating copyrights might have unpleasant consequences -- depending largely upon where you live.

If you happen to live in one of the former territories of the USSR: then you can totally ignore international copyright law, for all intents and purposes.  But they won't let you do it on this website.

Karen, you’re right of course :).

 But ultimately, does any of this matter when the textures made in FaceShop Pro are practically unusable?

Are they really that bad, CS?  Certain others seem to think that the textures are at least semi-usable.  While still others are only interested in the morphs.  But IIRC, you aren't sold on the program at all -- morphs or textures.

That's the somewhat off-putting aspect of this.  Many people seem to either love the program or hate it.  There's little middle ground of opinion that I've seen.

From what I've been able to achieve, and from the plethora of examples I've viewed, the textures are pretty darn bad...even with a solid photo reference. They can be 'saved' with allot of post work and a decent node tree, but what's the point? Especially given the questionable legality.

I wouldn't say I hate the program, I just choose not to use it.

My main weapon of choice is Apollo, meaning I already have a wealth of morph dials at my finger tips. Thus far they have served me well, and I've never wanted to do something and not been able to do it...if you get me.

The best 3D clones that I've ever created were done with nothing but morph dial-twirling.  It can be tedious, even frustrating -- but it can be made to work, and work well.

However: if there's an app that offers a 'lazy-man's' quick shortcut to do the same thing: then I wouldn't hesitate to use such an app.

The question lies in whether or not THIS app is a useful tool.

I've read a lot of the comments in the threads.  But in a case like this: the only way that I'll be able to answer the question for myself will be to buy the program and try it out.

There is a free 15 day demo. That sould be enough time to get some idea of whether you will like it or not.

That's not such a bad idea.

My opinion is exactly that...mine. My experience with FaceShop clearly differs from many others'.

Good luck with it though. If it makes your life a little easier, how can it be bad?

Thanks to both of you.  I'll probably give FaceShop a shot at some point.

It does something that I'd very much like to be able to do.  Or at least it offers the possibility of doing something that I'd very much like to be able to do.

Quote - Thanks to both of you.  I'll probably give FaceShop a shot at some point.

It does something that I'd very much like to be able to do.  Or at least it offers the possibility of doing something that I'd very much like to be able to do.

Hi there!
If it helps, pls. check out some of the cool threads on DAZ, as well as the Celebrity Look-alike contest (http://www.daz3d.com/i.x/contests/public_vote/-/?id=21)
Laslo

Nevertheless, this is more a recommendation for the purchase of Photoshop than from FaceShop!!

Don't know about the other entries there but none of mine were postworked other than basic color-brightness-contrast correction and adding backgrounds. Alas, the rules forbid me telling you which ones to look at, but if you've seen my gallery here, you should know some of my interests and so might have a clue.

Edited to add: And my latest gallery entry here is unpostworked except for a mild color correction to the lips and a poke-thru fix on the robes.

A medium (or even low) resolution photo is sufficient to create the morph geometry; which was my main reason for looking at Face Shop in the first place.
I think it is unreasonable to expect a single medium or low resolution photograph to produce a high quality 3D representation; however, the face geometry is there, and there is no reason that you can't use of a different and much higher resolution texture on said geometry.
Face Shop creates Unwrapped UV co-ords. You can extract a template; or just unwrap it again, if you don't like the existing Face Shop UVs.
Then there is no reason to expect the new morphed model and textures to behave any differently than any other model.
EDIT - some of the pictures look rather good right out of the box, which surprising to me. I would not have expected a single picture to provide enough information to make a 3d likeness.

Byrdie, are you sure you are allowed to post that Snape picture in this gallery? ;)

Actually, I don't know if it's the right place (or time) to post this comment, but... How about opening a gallery JUST for FaceShop ? With a disclaimer at the very top of the page, stating the work is NOT an intended copyright infringement and has no financial benefits for the creators...

Well, I'm leaving it up until/unless there's an official complaint. As it is NON-COMMERCIAL FAN ART, I don't think there's a problem either, though other folks might have other opinions. But it would be nice to have a proper ruling on the legality of this program. Perhaps the creator can tell us a bit more on how it actually works, what it does with the photo to make the morph and texture. Not asking to reveal trade secrets, just a better understanding that could help set things straight.

Forgot to mention: I posted it BEFORE this discussion came up, btw. And I had no reason to believe it was breaking any rules. Still not sure, that's why I want to know how FaceShop actually works, under the hood as opposed to on the surface. It just might not be doing what Karen thinks it is, which is a whole different matter. Only its creator knows for sure.

But it would be nice to have a proper ruling on the legality of this program.

Well, yes it would be, but you can only get that from a court.

And alas, only those who have money/stand to lose or gain money, etc. with FaceShop could afford that. Which leaves me out.   :sad:

Developers reply:

In regard to the texture map: There are NO original pixels left in the texture map created by FaceShop: every pixel IS replaced and remapped.
The resulting new texture map is new in every respect. This new texture map is the result of how the user sets up/traces the curves - which is an artistic decision.
While I am not a lawyer, from technical point of view the new textures represent a new and unique art work that does not share pixels with the original image in any ways. 

Laslo

If it doesn't resemble the original image then why would you use the photo in the first place?
Wrapping something onto a UV map doesn't make it a unique artwork.

I will get Clint in here to give his input.

Good idea! Just as I get things straight with one regard to this, along comes something that confuses me in another. Anyway, to be safe, I removed my Snape since the matter is still in doubt here.

Does it produce anything remotely close to a texture map for the figure intended that can be edited in Photoshop or another image application?  The negative publicity of this program including the SR1 update still has me wondering if I should grab it now while it's on sale or wait until all the bugs are fixed.  Anything has to be an improvement over the Poser Face Room which is/has been crappy since version 5.

I'm tempted to just buy the program anyway and wait for all the fixes.  I hate trying to create custom textures for the head even with the many merchant kits out there, and those reference photo sets are mostly useless--at least the few I've purchased.  They have little or no skin detail, or shadowy images that require too much postwork to fix.

I'm amazed by the reply you recieved from the developer Abalone.

By this rule I could take a photograph of any image displayed on my monitor as the resulting image would likley have no pixel in common with the source image.

It's then not a huge stretch to conclude that using a video camera to reproduce movies while in a theatre could also be deemed acceptable :P.

Conspiracy theorists of the world unite!

(I'm being facetious by the way).

As I said, I am not a lawyer. I have addressed a question which asked how the application handled/created textures.
I also find this whole discussion way overblown. I am sorry to say this but it seems that some are bending backwards to find something objectionable at any price. (This, by the way is not a privilege FS hold, naysayers rip every other product to shreds, often without even trying to use it first).
Laslo

Laslo, your easy going (even upbeat) and tollerant attitude to everything is something to which everyone around here should aspire. A real breadth of fresh air, I really respect it :)

Agree with you there momodot.

Seriously though (unlike my last tongue-in-cheek post), I wouldn't personally hesitate in posting an image in my gallery using a texture generated using this software from a web-sourced photograph. But unlike Byrdie I haven't managed to generate anything worthwhile.

If you're using the software for it's intended purpose in good faith; are not selling prints of your image, nor distributing the resulting texture (free or commercially), I doubt you'd have much to worry about.

Maybe it's time I included "I'm not a lawyer" in my signature! It would save time. :)

Quote - Hey, does anyone know who owns the copyright on this image?

This is funny:-)
But I don't think Bill owns the copyright. Mugshots, as well as political pictures (the official picture of the president) are in public domain, as are many other photos.
Ooops, I just fell into this trap again - flapping my lips about copyright.
Sorry,
Laslo

Mine wasn't a "found on the web" source but a screencapture I made myself from a legally purchased DVD. No redistributing & no commercial use of anything produced with it intended, so from the way FaceShop's creator says it works, I believe I'm in the clear and can claim Fair Use. I did this piece in good faith, abiding by the rules as I understood them. Always asking for clarification of said rules when in doubt. But of course that is no guarantee of not being sued or otherwise getting one's assets in a sling. :-)

Man what really burns my britches is related to the fact that you are all talking about copyrights. Well I just purchased the basic package to take a look because we(ef) turned this thing down last winter for reasons other than possible copyright issues that I can't go into but are probably obvious if you read this thread. The EULA is exactly the Poser 7 EULA save a name replacement and a resave to PDF. Word for word.

Talk about infringement.....sorry, this could probably could be considered an unprofessional post but I'm just steaming right now. 

Laslo can you please write your own and replace it asap so I can get on with my life. I'm currently unable to function.

Steve

The plot thickens!

Hi momodot,

wonderfully, I hope, there still come several such reactions to this simple-minded censorship it is organized here.

Huh?

(Don't mind me, brain's not working yet. need more coffee ...)

:blink:

Eh?

:huh: :blink:

Meow?  :m_confused:

Purple monkey dishwasher.

Speaking of Meow. . .

I just tried to create a cat face for the Mil Cat using FaceShop Pro with terrible results.  The OBJ I imported into the program cut the cats ears off.  In real life, the cat actually had part of his left ear cut off by whoever had him before me.

The texture BMP didn't look anything like it should.  Am I to assume we can only work with M3 and V3/V4 in the Pro version as well as the basic version?

The product description says you can use "any" figure.  Obviously it was never tested on all figures (which would be impossible), but I would assume at least the DAZ Millenium figures.  It also doesn't work well with Apollo 2007 if you are using a photograph of  a man with a beard.  The beard figure is not available for the 2007 version and I was hesitant to use the 2005 version because it doesn't fit Apollo 2007.  The resulting texture map cuts off everything below the nose except the mouth.

Maybe I'm expecting too much.  I do think the program has great potential, but is far from being ready for primetime, or maybe just Poser.  I wonder if I'd have better results using DAZ Studio.

Quote - Speaking of Meow. . .

I just tried to create a cat face for the Mil Cat using FaceShop Pro with terrible results.  The OBJ I imported into the program cut the cats ears off.  In real life, the cat actually had part of his left ear cut off by whoever had him before me.

The texture BMP didn't look anything like it should.  Am I to assume we can only work with M3 and V3/V4 in the Pro version as well as the basic version?

The product description says you can use "any" figure.  Obviously it was never tested on all figures (which would be impossible), but I would assume at least the DAZ Millenium figures.  It also doesn't work well with Apollo 2007 if you are using a photograph of  a man with a beard.  The beard figure is not available for the 2007 version and I was hesitant to use the 2005 version because it doesn't fit Apollo 2007.  The resulting texture map cuts off everything below the nose except the mouth.

Maybe I'm expecting too much.  I do think the program has great potential, but is far from being ready for primetime, or maybe just Poser.  I wonder if I'd have better results using DAZ Studio.

Hmmm. I tried FS Pro with the P7 Dog and found the following:

Best to export the dog with similar morphs than the photo. (What I mean is that on the photo of a German Sheppard the dogs mouth was open - so I used the dials to open the mouth before exporting. Similarly, in the photo the ears were pricked up, so I did same on the morph before exporting.
I got relatively nice results. Unlike with humans, this needs a lot of experimenting - so, patience is advised. However, animals can work. 
(BTW: we did remove the reference to many animals in the product page, exacctly because some animals were not tested at all).
Laslo

I knew animals would be an extreme possibility, but after all that work with the dots and curves I expected something a little better that what the texture showed.  Ooops!  Deleted my folder with the example texture because I removed the program and data files from my computer.

Is there a reason why the texture maps are so fuzzy/blurry?  I know it's not an exact science and you can't expect perfection, but the maps themselves are really terrible.  I think (and I include myself) that we expect the impossible or the easiest from this program, but there are some serious flaws in it.

For instance:

1)  If you have to dot this and that, why do you have to draw lines around the same areas.  It would seem to me that the drawing part would be better than dotting this and that.  It seems very repititious to me (of course, I'm not a programmer either).

1. The interface is not intutive:  hovering the mouse pointer over an icon should tell you what it is for.  Simple to remedy.

2. User manuals should never be written by the programmer.  Too technical.  I've written many user manuals for proprietary company programs after just using them.  The instructions/user manual is vague and terrible.

4)  A good tutorial, and not one from someone who has only used it for a couple of days.  The tutorial included was okay, but skipped many steps.  No offense to the person who posted it, but in all honesty it lacked the professionalism for a tutorial for a program that is seriously dysfunctional.

5)  Separate user's manual for the Pro and DAZ Studio versoins of the program.  Laziness includes both programs together only to confuse everyone.  While on the topic, put the export Poser figure (David, Vicky 4, etc.) at the beginning, then move on to FaceShop Pro instructions.

I think a lot of the reason for users being annoyed with this program is because not enough time was spent on the user's manual and/or instructions on how to use it.  I also think that the product page is more wishful thinking than actual results.  Some people have gotten good results, but even people with systems a little or more over the system requirements are still having problems with this.  My biggest beef is that the texture files exported from this program are very poor in quality.

Good try, but not quite there yet, and the full price you are asking is not worth it.  Thank you for letting me beta test for you.  Next time ask us before we have to pay for it.

I think you're on the right track, but don't rush it.  Something has to be better than that Poser Face Room.

That's a really good question whbos.

The more I tinker, the better the result I'm having with the morphs, although I'll probably always be a dial spinner at heart; but the textures I've seen have been pretty universally horrible, regardless of the quality of the source photograph.

I can generally get a better result from cutting/pasting/cloning a photograph directly onto a UV map. And I'm talking five minute hack jobs.

My answers:

Thanks for the suggestions, good ideas for 3.5
In detail:

1)  If you have to dot this and that, why do you have to draw lines around the same areas.  It would seem to me that the drawing part would be better than dotting this and that.  It seems very repititious to me (of course, I'm not a programmer either).

Answer: the dots are to align TempMan (the 3D head) w. your photo. This is an effective and patented way to set up step 2 - the curves.

1. The interface is not intutive:  hovering the mouse pointer over an icon should tell you what it is for.  Simple to remedy.

Answer: agreed - will do.

1. User manuals should never be written by the programmer.  Too technical.  I've written many user manuals for proprietary company programs after just using them.  The instructions/user manual is vague and terrible.

Answer: we did rewrite/improve the manual in SR1. Still needs more work for 3.5.

4)  A good tutorial, and not one from someone who has only used it for a couple of days.  The tutorial included was okay, but skipped many steps.  No offense to the person who posted it, but in all honesty it lacked the professionalism for a tutorial for a program that is seriously dysfunctional.

Answer: yes and no. I just loved the freshness and style of the user (gojugirl). It is irresistable.

5)  Separate user's manual for the Pro and DAZ Studio versoins of the program.  Laziness includes both programs together only to confuse everyone.  While on the topic, put the export Poser figure (David, Vicky 4, etc.) at the beginning, then move on to FaceShop Pro instructions.

Answer: Laziness? No, but you have a point. We are thinking of issuing separate flavors (FS for Poser, Fs for Studio, Fs for 3DS Max, FS for Photoshop, etc.)

I hope this helps. Before you totally cream the program, pls. give us some credit - we work very hard every day to improve and make it a really compelling product. And yes, it has great promises - no argument there.
Laslo

Quote - Maybe I'm expecting too much.  I do think the program has great potential, but is far from being ready for primetime, or maybe just Poser.  I wonder if I'd have better results using DAZ Studio.

I think some software makers don't realize that cats are people too, with faces! ;)

This is a little OT, but...

Maybe it's just me, but I can't see the benefit of mapping a dog or cats face/head from a photograph, if you can't also map the body. Unless of course you plan to clothe your furry friend from head to toe. Not that I'm saying this software should do that too! (You have to draw the line somewhere).

I haven't written this program off just yet, as I can see some great potential here. But I will say that I believe it was released a little prematurely. I am however cautiously optimistic about 3.5 (fingers and toes crossed).

:)

I think I'm going to use the fact that the developper does read this hread ;) and say that I actually find the software really usefull. 

Yes, I did buy the basic version (btw, have you any 'upgrade' in store? I'm thinking of the Pro version after trying out the basic, but I don't wish to pay the entire price again. A nice 'upgrade' option for those of us who went for 'basic' first would be very good)

And here's the rub. I love what the soft does to the textures, it saves me a lot of fiddling within Photoshop (and don't get me wrong, i do fiddle within the Photosop but now I have more time for other things...). The thing that bothers me is the fact that I cannot showcase my work -- at least at this site, due to the overblown copyright issues.

I mean, what's the point in making anything if you just keep it in your drawer?...

(but of course, I am planning to set out a new comic project with the characters developped with the help of FaceShop. And add a few characters like that to the existing project...)

Quote - This is a little OT, but...

Maybe it's just me, but I can't see the benefit of mapping a dog or cats face/head from a photograph, if you can't also map the body. Unless of course you plan to clothe your furry friend from head to toe. Not that I'm saying this software should do that too! (You have to draw the line somewhere).

I haven't written this program off just yet, as I can see some great potential here. But I will say that I believe it was released a little prematurely. I am however cautiously optimistic about 3.5 (fingers and toes crossed).

:)

I just did it for the hell of it to see if it would work.  I had planned to map the rest of the body myself.  Animal templates are a pain to work with.

I also found that when exporting the Mil Cat OBJ, no head was listed to export so technically this would be a DAZ problem, not FSP.  The product listing says any figure so I thought it would work.  Obviously not.  I also think that in the next version, when importing an Object the program should show a relatively close image of the figure being imported--if that makes any sense.  For instance, you are always working with the same face and there are differences among all of the figures being imported.  This may be the reason why the maps don't always line up.