Quote - On the other hand if the idea is just to be safe because nobody knows the real answer than should we be acting as if we do know the answer? 

No, the real answer is basic copyright law.  This is an ordinary application of copyright as it applies to pretty much all kinds of intellectual property.  You cannot take photographs of the pages of a book and sell those, unless you have permission from the author.  You cannot take a tape recording of an MP3 and resell that, unless you have permission of the copyright holder there.  You cannot take a book that you bought in PDF format, convert it to plain text, and redistribute it without permission from the author.  Just like I cannot take someone else's digital artwork, photoshop it a bit, and sell that (a variation on what is being discussed here.)  Etc etc.  This really is fairly hammered out copyright law.  People can dislike it or find it inconvenient or whatever, but it's still very widely applied and accepted law.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html
A work is “fixed” in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration. A work consisting of sounds, images, or both, that are being transmitted, is “fixed” for purposes of this title if a fixation of the work is being made simultaneously with its transmission.

...
“Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works” include two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans. Such works shall include works of artistic craftsmanship insofar as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned; the design of a useful article, as defined in this section, shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.18

...
§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works38Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

Quote - Frankly I take the Rosity selected values at face-value. If the uploader chose commercial use OK, then they've got to live with it. I rarely go into readmes unless there's a problem with the model.

However, the way the law looks at it, act of download an item and using it is indicative of your agreeing to the terms of use in the readmes - regardless of whether you actually read them or not.
So, not paying attention to them is at your own risk. If you ever get in hot water about it, saying I took the quick rendo blurb at face value and didn't red the readme will not hold up as an excuse in court or any sort of arbitration. You'll only get your nose rubbed in "It's your responsibility to read those things"

Yeah, it's a pain, I agree. So are many other responsibilities.

Whats that saying about arguing on the internet and the special olypics?

Anyway this one is pretty much getting there I guess I've read things in all the articles that contradict eachother - so unless someone in the discussion is a copyright attorney (if so please raise hand). 

http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/tirelessrebutter.htm

I have officially been worn down.

**ir Ithink one day you'll be sorryyou have all that stuff in your runtimes with readmes that say not for commercial render.  If you ever get into selling your renders for book covers and things you will wish you had all that stuff in a separate runtime.  That's why I think "freebies" are so dangerous for newbies.
Love esther

**

 worse thatn that, your readmes won't say that because if you've put it all in one runtime, you will find most of your readmes have been overwritten.  Not for commercial, to a lot of freebie makers means don't sell my mesh, but there might be tons of restrictions on the renders - so watch out.
Love esther

oh, yeah, watch out noobs, the big bad mean freebie providers are going to ge'cha and someday you'll be very sorry  :rolleyes:

Muaaahahahahhaaaa    I'm watching you!!!!!!! 

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Quote - *
*Far as I can tell it is ONLY ppl in the internet art community that act like this anyway.  I often go on photography trips with my daughter.  We have never once had a person tell us we could not take a picture of something if it was going to in any way whatsoever earn us money.

Heh... you may want to read this:

http://www.asmp.org/commerce/legal/releases/

ANYBODY doing professional photography learns and knows the concept of model and property releases like they were scriptures to a priest... And if the wrong person (or people) discovers that you used their likeness or recognizable property in a commercial product w/o a signed release from them? You may as well hand over your house and bank account to 'em, unless you can come up with a very obvious exception (there are a few... journalism being among them).

So no, it isn't just an Internet thing. :)

/P

 quote:- "oh, yeah, watch out noobs, the big bad mean freebie providers are going to ge'cha and someday you'll be very sorry"

well the noob will be very very sorry if his runtime has things that have render restrictions all mixed in with his other stuff and then (to make it worse) half of the readmes explaing which models can be used for what have been overwritten (which is very common) , just because they thought a freebie with "not commercial" tag meant what the poster above who i replied to, thought it meant.
love esther

Those are the people that the deepest levels of purgatory are reserved for.  They deserve no sympathy!!!

*that was sarcastic - I can't stay stoically serious for too long at once

Quote -  quote:- "oh, yeah, watch out noobs, the big bad mean freebie providers are going to ge'cha and someday you'll be very sorry"

well the noob will be very very sorry ....

How will they be sorry? Someone is going to sue them or get on their case, what's gonna happen? What's the worst thing that'll happen? They'll be annoyed for a few days after they find out they eventually need to learn pay attention to copyrghts? Not exacly something I'd say 'that's dangerous, you'll be very sorry'. You say it like drunk driving, drugs and a noob being unfamiliar with copyrights are on the same level of danger.

Let's have a reality check here for a moment. Noone in their right mind is going to go after noobs making a few mistakes, heck, even if they downloaded and confused a hundred or so freebies in the initial downloading frenzy.  For one, noobs are not likely to make significant amount of money which means they're not likely to do much copyright damage.

By the time they get to the level of making a fair amount of money off their work, they'll learn about copyrights too.

Unless of course, you really think that freebie providers are so mean they'll go after a few poor noobs making a noobie mistake.

My point is that your worry about noobs is very much overblown compared to any realistic 'danger' they may be in. However, any noob that does have aspirations of commercial succes will have to learn a lot about copyrights. Much like anyone whom is a noob in a hobby they are are taking up is likely to make mistakes. By the time they do, they'll no longer be the noobs.

And even if a freebie provider catches a noob making a mistake, and decides to be a stinker and say something, the most they can do is send them a note saying, hey, you can't do that. Not exactly something dangerous. You make it sound like a freebie provider will come knocking on their door and knife them or some other dangerous consequence they'll be very sorry for.
:rolleyes:

 I think most people want to own their renders.  If they have a whole lot of freestuff mixed in their runtimes with their good stuff, and half the readmes missing, the only way to be sure they own the renders, if say one day they want to sell one, is to start their runtime all over again.  for me that would be a disaster.  Some people don't have external runtimes.   They have everything in one big runtime.
I am sure you are right about their chances of being sued being miniscual, but none of us want to do anything illegal.
Love esther

*""The point is not to end up in court. Once you are in court, your house, sanity and well being is at stake even if you have a good case.  Prudent artists and business people work on avoiding that.""

seems alot more dangerous than:

*""and decides to be a stinker and say something, the most they can do is send them a note saying, hey, you can't do that.""

 It is a bit sad if noobs have to learn such a tough lesson the hard way.
Well I think some of them have seen this thread and I'm sure it has helped them.  Others will have to rely on free stuff providers, listening to what people are worrying about on these threads and changing their practices to clarify things a bit more.  So I am hoping something positive will come out of all this.
Love esther

Quote - *""The point is not to end up in court. Once you are in court, your house, sanity and well being is at stake even if you have a good case.  Prudent artists and business people work on avoiding that.""

seems alot more dangerous than:

*""and decides to be a stinker and say something, the most they can do is send them a note saying, hey, you can't do that.""

Yes it does sound more dangerous and it is in the case of the first statement which applies to someone deliberately violating copyrights and making a significant profit from them. It also applies to commercial artists and businesses. It doesn't apply to hobby-noobs hoping for a gift certificate or some other small change endeavor.

Second statement applies to a noob making a few learning mistakes.

You can't take those two statements out of the context they were written in and compare them in the manner you did, because they refer to a different segment of users.  Even courts are inclined to cut noobs a break, when they find themselves contesting something with a professional, because as a lay person or a noob, there's no expectation that you know the details. Professionals on the other hand, the way courts see it have an obligation to be up to speed with their knowledge.

Is it my turn now to nag you, for merely skimming through what I wrote not paying attention?

I know you don't want to hear from me any more, and would prefer to have an attorney explain things to you, however, I do have about 20 years of experience of dealing with copyrights and intellectual property rights in what I do for work. I'm one of those people that courts would see as obligated to be up to speed in knowing what they are and aren't supposed to do to protect their own rights and how not to violate someone elses' rights.

 well the thing is by the time a noob becomes experienced enough to know what they should be doing, their runtime could be in one hell of a mess.  It is a situation which, although you don't seem to think of as a big deal, would be really terrible for a lot of people who want their renders to be their own to do with what they will.  It would involve completely reloading all their bought stuff again.
Love esther

OK - here's the FINAL WORD on copyrights, freebies, and the law regarding intellectual property........in the words of the Nobel-prize-winning Al Gore: there is no greater controlling legal authority than this:

International Copyright Law

Over 11.4 million people (and growing) just can't be wrong.

*"I know you don't want to hear from me any more, and would prefer to have an attorney explain things to you, however, I do have about 20 years of experience of dealing with copyrights and intellectual property rights in what I do for work. I'm one of those people that courts would see as obligated to be up to speed in knowing what they are and aren't supposed to do to protect their own rights and how not to violate someone elses' rights."

I don't mind hearing from you.  I just don't think you or other forumites are the end all be all experts on this matter that you seem to think you are.  I don't think I am either.  Ignorance isn't an acceptable plea in any court.   I think judges make lots of money for a good reason probably.    So in the end all the horns in the world can be tooted in this thread all the credentials presented it simply doesn't make any difference. 

Right now people (noobs) have to spend a ridiculous amount of time pouring through stuff to make sure they are within rights to even use the freebie.  It's absurd to me. 

"Heres a steak I made.  You can eat it.  You have to eat it in a closet behind a locked door under a red blanket.  If anyone sees you eating the steak then were gunna have problems buddy!  If you use ANYTHING other than a white birch toothpick when your done, well all I can say is you'll hope you never met me"

"Ill have chicken thanks"

Forumite enters:

"OMGZ  you were sooooo unappreciative of that steak, I should know I have a doctorate in steakology"

*"Heres a steak I made.  You can eat it.  You have to eat it in a closet behind a locked door under a red blanket.  If anyone sees you eating the steak then were gunna have problems buddy!  If you use ANYTHING other than a white birch toothpick when your done, well all I can say is you'll hope you never met me"

"Ill have chicken thanks"

Forumite enters:

"OMGZ  you were sooooo unappreciative of that steak, I should know I have a doctorate in steakology"

ROFLMAO!

Thanks for the positive waves!  I think some people take this Poser thing way too serious.

Well, in all fairness, let's look at what really happens here if a copyright or EULA is violated.

First, it all depends on who got offended, doesn't it?

#1 - Say as example, I violated a README clause that says no commercial use, and the maker doesn't live anywhere near Portland, Oregon, USA (where I live). In order to redress his or her grievance, the copyright holder has these options:

• file a DMCA complaint at any store or site that shows the commercial work I made/sell 
• file a lawsuit - in a court nearest my locale.
• bitch and moan a lot to whip up an online lynch mob.

The first one is a "maybe" at best, since the commercial work can easily be something not online, or may not even be provable enough to withstand a competent counter-claim for a DMCA complaint. The second one is going to cost you a lot of money to either have a lawyer local to here file it, or to fly/drive out to file it in person. The last one is limited to Poserdom, which is only a relative handful of sites, and assumes that the copyright holder can even guess my username(s) correctly (in my case they probably could, but in most other cases they would have a nearly impossible time).

...and this is assuming the copyright holder even finds out in the first place.
#2 - let's get real nasty here... like ByteMeOK nasty: Rip off a texture and make (literally) dozens of thousands of bucks over time (if not over six figures) off of doing so in various online stores.

Okay, same options as above, and now there's some real money involved to make it worth chasing. But, if like ByteMeOK, you were careful to rip off someone on another continent entirely, you're still pretty much in the clear. After all, the worst that happened was that her online persona became persona non-grata... but she's probably still peeking in once in awhile with a clone account.  Her scam also got halted - umm, okay, but she could've bought a house with what she made off of it in the first place, and nothing is stopping her from doing it again, this time using a boyfriend or relative's info to receive new money. Catharina didn't have the resources or the time to launch a full-on lawsuit from the other side of the ocean... and it would still cost her more than could ever be recovered.

--

Now obviously there is a big distinction here - the two examples show what happens when a scammer simply wants a piece of the dough with no regard to reputation or profession. Let's look at a big real-life example of a dumb mistake: Mehndi and Wallpaper textures.

For those not familiar, Mehndi (who founded and once ran PoserPros) decided that online pix of old wallpaper textures were fine and dandy to use as texture bases for some of her products because she (erroneously) thought that those particular textures were public domain. She even had similar textures in a book of pubic-domain patterns. Problem is, she didn't do her research hard enough, and she didn't do the grunt-work of making her own textures from scratch. She also had a habit of making enemies... one of which decided to do a lot of research, and found the violation, then contacted the copyright owners.

When all was said and done, Mehndi lost her business (and hence her and her husband's livelihood): PoserPros. That's a lot of future income and past work that was simply thrown down the toilet over a dumb mistake, no? The copyright owner was a corporation that could have very easily found the resources to sue her into oblivion (why they didn't is more of a testament to the company's integrity than to any luck on Mehndi's part). As it turned out, the company was satisfied simply to see her product pulled from further sale and an apology made. Very few companies of any real means are like that anymore... and if it's a publicly traded company (that is, it has shares on the stock market)? Heh - you're fscked.

This is why anyone considering commercial/professional work in graphics should always sit down and educate themselves on how the whole copyright thing works. The lesson is simple: As long as you're small potatoes, you probably won't really feel the effects of a mistake or a willful violation (hell, you might even make a decent pile of cash from it). But, once you start really getting somewhere? The risks are higher, and the potential for loss is greater.

/P

I like the 4 options at ShareCG:  All rights reserved;       Non-commercial use only;
Limited use with credits;     Unrestricted use.
That eliminates any ambiguity as to exactly what they mean.

*"I like the 4 options at ShareCG:  All rights reserved;       Non-commercial use only;
Limited use with credits;     Unrestricted use.
That eliminates any ambiguity as to exactly what they mean."

*I agree that does seem alot better.

Penguisto,
Your level headed description of what might actually happen was refreshing and made alot more sense.

A couple of years ago I threw away all freebies collected for as long as I've been online (some 8-10 years) and am now making sure it clearly says "can be used in commercial renderings".

As a computer game creator using rendered 3D images with hundreds of objects through out the game I have to be very careful with freebie objects (if I use any) making sure they can be used in commercial renderings.
Our first game (released 2000) sold very well even though it was released only in Finland. Our next game will be sold in several countries with consequently, more exposure so to avoid eventual lawsuits one must be overly careful.

Besides that I'd take the opportunity to thank all fantastic freebie makers - if I use your object you will be mentioned in the game credits.

Quote -
This is why anyone considering commercial/professional work in graphics should always sit down and educate themselves on how the whole copyright thing works. The lesson is simple: As long as you're small potatoes, you probably won't really feel the effects of a mistake or a willful violation (hell, you might even make a decent pile of cash from it). But, once you start really getting somewhere? The risks are higher, and the potential for loss is greater.

Absolutely!!! :)

Quote - I just don't think you or other forumites are the end all be all experts on this matter that you seem to think you are.

That's nice!

Is that another example of constructive critique and non combative approach of looking for positives that you advocate?

No it's an example of an opinion.  I don't think you are the end all be all expert.  I apologize if that offends you.

Quote - Thanks for the positive waves!  I think some people take this Poser thing way too serious.

Well, some of us do make a living out of 3D and graphics which among other things include Poser. Pardon me for taking my mortgage and my family's financial security seriously.
I guess that makes me the bad guy.   :rolleyes:

Quote - No it's an example of an opinion.  I don't think you are the end all be all expert.  I apologize if that offends you.

That's nice.

Wow, this thread has taken a few twists and turns. It's a shame things have to get so complicated. Speaking for those who have given things away in the past, I miss seeing something I made in someone else's scene. Never got a "reputation" or made one cent off any of it, but it was nice. Not quite nice enough to deal with all this legal stuff, though. (That's on top of the other stuff.)

Quote - "Heres a steak I made.  You can eat it.  You have to eat it in a closet behind a locked door under a red blanket.  If anyone sees you eating the steak then were gunna have problems buddy!  If you use ANYTHING other than a white birch toothpick when your done, well all I can say is you'll hope you never met me"

You mean like spending $3000 on a piece of software and then having to agree to ten pages of fine print outlining the ways you can and can not use it?

Totally absurd and outlandish, I know!  :rolleyes:

Bah -- if I ever made a freebie (which I haven't), then I'd just say "do whatever you like with it, except don't sell it or claim it as your own.  Use in commercial renders is fine -- but you cannot sell the item itself".  Something like that.  Perhaps I'd need to hire a copyright lawyer @ $175.00/hour to work out the precise legalese for me.......so that I could give away my freebie.

I still prefer the answer that I gave above.

Quote - Use in commercial renders is fine -- but you cannot sell the item itself". 

Now there you go again, you bad meanie boy you, wanting to limit how a gift can be used!
:lol:

It may be a good time forr a few cat pictures!

You know -- the one thing that I've noticed about these copyright law threads is that they never seem to resolve anything, and that one of them pretty much sounds like another.  And I've yet to hear of a single, genuine copyright lawsuit that's been filed over any alleged copyright violation that's occurred within the confines of the Poserverse.  Perhaps such a thing has actually happened -- but I've yet to hear of it.  Or of its conclusion, if it has.

The worst that's ever happened that I'm aware of has been community ostracism & banning from various marketplaces of the alleged violator.  That's it.  No one's every actually been sued, to my knowledge.

In the meantime, the Russian give-away websites continue to happily violate copyright laws to their heart's content.  And no one can do anything about it.  Except, perhaps, to say "That's terrible!".

shrug

Quote - It may be a good time forr a few cat pictures!

That's the accepted Rendo equivalent of Rick Rolling.

Connie,  I understand everything you've been saying.  I've also been watching the economic meltdown in California.  I can only imagine what you are feeling right now. 

As for copyrights,  I don't know a thing about them.  My union has a lawyer,  I guess I could ask him,  or maybe the judge we're supporting for re-election,  I could ask her.

I do like Wheatpenny's idea of freebie classification.

Quote -

In the meantime, the Russian give-away websites continue to happily violate copyright laws to their heart's content.  And no one can do anything about it.  Except, perhaps, to say "That's terrible!".

shrug

That's because the local authorities (in this case, the Russian gov't) can't be arsed to enforce the copyright laws. A lot of countries are like that.
As a banknote collector, I NEVER buy anything from an eBay auction originating in China because if it comes from there, there's a 90% chance it's counterfeit, because China's government never bothers to enforce the laws against it.
Same holds true for software piracy in Russia.

Quote - Connie,  I understand everything you've been saying.  I've also been watching the economic meltdown in California.

They're in for more of the same, and far worse -- if they don't stop electing........ah, never mind.  OT.

Happy to oblige:

Cat Picture:
http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/bigcat.htm

Quote - You know -- the one thing that I've noticed about these copyright law threads is that they never seem to resolve anything, and that one of them pretty much sounds like another.  And I've yet to hear of a single, genuine copyright lawsuit that's been filed over any alleged copyright violation that's occurred within the confines of the Poserverse.  Perhaps such a thing has actually happened -- but I've yet to hear of it.  Or of its conclusion, if it has.

The worst that's ever happened that I'm aware of has been community ostracism & banning from various marketplaces of the alleged violator.  That's it.  No one's every actually been sued, to my knowledge.

Exactly. That's why I wonder why people make such a big deal out of someone putting a restriction or two on their freebies and sayig that the poor nwebies are going to learn the hard way, like they're in for some sort of danger, or wondering what a court precedent might be.

I've heard of two or three issues within poserworls, like the guy that keeps trying to go after Phil C, and couple other issues aside from waht's been mentioned in this thread.  None of those are involving newbies or someone newbie inappropriately using free items.

Bottom line is, people whom create stuff do get to set terms of use, whether stuff is free or for sale. Thos whom use things need to be aware of terms, whether it's a freebie, purchased item, utility, pice of sowtware, texture or whatever. Especially if they intend to use if for profit. No need for experts, attorneys or a judges to settle this.

It irks me to no end when people try to vilify the freebie providers for setting restrictions for use. You offer something that is free of charge and may help someone, and then they biatch and moan that you haven't given them enough. At the same time, they're not offering anything for free, but complain that there may be a restriction for them making money off of what you gave them. How selfish and ungrateful can one get????
Shit, if someone gave me a proverbial steak, and I was hungry, I wouldn't moan about any unreasonable restrictions... (Like don't shred it and make tacos and sell them around the corner. It's for you to eat it.)

As for other countries... takes time money and effort to enforce those kinds of intelectual property laws. When a general standard of living in a given country is barely above survival, they usually don't have the resources to enforce intellectual property infringements. Even in this country, most of the cost of the infringement enforcement falls on the injured party, and if they're lucky, they may get a small part of it back.

Imagine if our differences united us,  instead of dividing us.

Quote - Connie,  I understand everything you've been saying.  I've also been watching the economic meltdown in California.  I can only imagine what you are feeling right now. 

Thanks Pat :)

*"At the same time, they're not offering anything for free, but complain that there may be a restriction for them making money off of what you gave them. How selfish and ungrateful can one get????"

*Thats a real good place to start.  See one of the MAIN points here, is that NOBODY said that.  You and some of the "me toos"  up and decided thats what people were saying - while repetative attempts were made to clarify, you ignored them - you stated that the entire issue gets you upset because of these mystic site mails you recieved.  So based on that you falsly accuse anyone who ever mentions anything about freebies of wanting to make money off stuff you give them and COMPLAINING if they can't.

***He didn't complain that he couldn't.  He complained that he wanted to know one way or the other. 

Then later on when it had been made crystal clear to the entire community that giving any kind of feedback will result in these type of absurd accusations and that the consumer is better off to just not bother at all, you come back being all snide about it.  Like how dare we decide that we don't want to deal with asinine drama and accusations - and would advise others to avoid it as well.  I'm sorry but doesn't that make sense????  Why should someone want to use a bucket in the back of thier render if they will have to spend months figuring out whether they owe them 37c for it?  In any kind of alternate universe does that seem logical? 

So who are these elusive "they"  the ones that came about and DEMANDED your stuff for free so they could make money off it.  With NO restrictions.  Did that happen in this thread or is it akin to the mystic site mails?

And this is why no conclusion ever comes from these type of threads.  Instead of sticking to the facts, what is ACTUALLY said, people make victims of themselves and pretend as if someone has done something that they simply have not. 

You're welcome.  Thank you for being my friend.  You have an inner strength that I admire.

Now,  Soultaker,  I don't have a lot of time,  specially for arguing so I'll ask you once again.
Would you like to see the terms of usage at the beginning of the readme?  If you don't mind me asking,  what kind of freebies are you interested in?  What is the best file structure for you as well?  The reason I'm asking,  we're creating a new website and I'd like to double check the freebies before we upload them.  BTW all our freebies are available for commercial work.  We do hope though that should you make a profit from your commercial work that you would donate a little of it to a charity of your choosing.

There's no way that I'd spend $50,000 in an attempt to recover $3000 (or $300).

Within the Poserverse, copyright essentially works on the honor system.  And on the threat of ostracism and banning for would-be violators.  But for that little problem: of course, there's always clone accounts..........although it's usually not too difficult to spot a ringer -- especially when the 'ringer' is well-known in the community.

Real copyright lawsuits are for the Big Boys -- like movie studios, large software companies, music producers, publishing houses, etc..  And even they can't stop piracy -- for all the efforts of their mega-million-dollar high-powered teams of lawyers.

Honor system -- that's about the best that we can have / hope for in here.  Frankly, the remainder of the discussion over copyright law, etc. is pretty much all academic.......and it's pretty much that way in ALL of these seemingly endless 'copyright law' types of threads.

Uh.......they're largely a waste of time, IMHO.  But to each their own.

Quote - There's no way that I'd spend $50,000 in an attempt to recover $3000 (or $300).

Within the Poserverse, copyright essentially works on the honor system.  And on the threat of ostracism and banning for would-be violators.  But for that little problem: of course, there's always clone accounts..........although it's usually not too difficult to spot a ringer -- especially when the 'ringer' is well-known in the community.

Real copyright lawsuits are for the Big Boys -- like movie studios, large software companies, music producers, publishing houses, etc..  And even they can't stop piracy -- for all the efforts of their mega-million-dollar high-powered teams of lawyers..

Exactly!

Quote - Honor system -- that's about the best that we can have / hope for in here.  Frankly, the remainder of the discussion over copyright law, etc. is pretty much all academic.......and it's pretty much that way in ALL of these seemingly endless 'copyright law' types of threads.

Uh.......they're largely a waste of time, IMHO.  But to each their own.

For a moment there I thought that there were people in here whom were interested in an intro explanation of how copyrights work, but I got accused of being something tantamount to a pompous wannabe expert for sharing what I do know about copyrights. All because it didn't agree with their opinions.
Oh well, I should have known better then to offer a 'freebie' lesson. :lol:

Nope the links were much appreciated Connie.  It's the part where it began to be insinuated that anyone KNOWs - when in all actuality case precident has yet to be set, so nobody knows.  If the legal experts themselve concede that the area is often muddy and confusing than Im going to lean towards believing that. 

Quote - Oh well, I should have known better then to offer a 'freebie' lesson. :lol:

I'd suggest legal action -- but I'll have to check with my lawyer first. 

(joking)  :biggrin:

What's black and tan and looks great on a lawyer?

I'd suggest it too - then we'll all know the answer!

Quote - *"At the same time, they're not offering anything for free, but complain that there may be a restriction for them making money off of what you gave them. How selfish and ungrateful can one get????"

*Thats a real good place to start.  See one of the MAIN points here, is that NOBODY said that. 

Please do notice that Xeno and I were talking about "these copyright law threads is that they never seem to resolve anything", and no longer about only what transpired in this thread. I did clue you in on past threads and conversations, did I not?  I never said it happened in "this thread" we started talking about 'these threads'.

If you're going to follow me around in order to snip at me at each post I make, please do try to actually pay attention to the context conversation.