Well, other than my blog http://www.renderosity.com/mod/blog/index.php?display&member=weezerhopw

I keep my mouth shut, but I am wondering, do most of you all just go by the rule, "If you haven't got anything nice to say, say nothing at all" ?

I mean, if you see that someone is using a part of a scene that was created by someone else, and they don't mention it or credit it under thier gallery post, then ...arrg....

/rant off :)

If you think its unfair...send em a private message to ask about it?

I've never learned to keep my mouth shut entirely...but I'm still trying..lol

If someone uses asomething of my stuff without asking first, they will get an earfull, I can tell you that!
But when they did ask, it's fine by me. :-)

Corrie

well..it's not so much that, but more like when people use scenes and models and don't even write anything in the description of the image saying, "I used one of the sample scenes from Bryce 6" and a freebie model from "here" or "there".  I am just whining...I know there are a lot of new people all the time and people trying to get inspired and they get excited when they make an image appear that looks fun, so they post it. I just wish they would fess up to using other peoples work in it. Maybe they don't understand.

Oh, I agree with that, yes.
It's just the decent thing to do!

Maybe they don't understand.
Or maybe they don't give a d***

Corrie

some of the newer types may not know this bit of nettiquette...;)
I have a notepad document keeping track of everything for a pic. Prolly why I go so long between posts...;)

It is not just the newbies either and it is not limited to certain galleries.  There are seasoned artist that never give credit or mentioned to models used, they just soak in the acclaims and wows like it was all theirs. 

Yes, sometimes it bothers me; sometimes it doesn't.  When it doesn't I'm usually in a mindset that the item was given to them as a freebie or they purchased it and the right to use it.  Very fine lines of legalism and just plain courtesy either way.

Weezer, I wonder if a viewer were to leave a comment to a posted scene like, "nice use or (blank's) freebie ship model", would the mod's take your side if the artist took it as a degrading attack.

 Yea I don't want to drag anyone through the coals publicly, unless they really deserve it, but that would be a mod's job.

I did just that: called someone on posting entire scenes they got at another site (I posted the link to the freebie), accepting compliments on their modeling skills, when all they did was render it in an expensive engine. What I got for my trouble was the "artist" going through my entire gallery and slamming every image. I had to disable comments to make it stop. And the official support I got? "Don't dish it out, if you can't take the heat."

Lesson? It's not worth the headache.

 Sorry to hear that happend. There is a report function we can use if the image is clearly in copywrite violation, I am glad it's there, although I haven't used it. I just wish people would put something in the dscriptions of thier images. I just posted an image using one of the sample scenes as a set from Bryce 6, but I mentioned it and explained everything. It's about integrity for me. People that make these images using tons of imported models WITHOUT crediting the creators of the models, etc, are the problem. You are right though, it's probably not worth a personal affront. I'll leave it to the Admins and Moderators.

If someone did not give credit it is appropriate to let them know that it should be corrected,  If they don't,  and like you say it might be a copyright infringement,  a heads up to the original creator would be in order.  I know I would appreciate it.

This is my model and my render:

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=2042203

A gently-worded message by site mail is the way to go (and REALLY be nice). Public messages on the work itself will not be appreciated by anyone. If you get an abusive response from the person, send copies of your original message and the response by site mail to your friendly local moderator. I'm sure Bobby Stahr or The Bryster will be sympathetic if you've been civil and can prove it.
BTW, I been there, done that.
:b_smile:

Peace out,
John.

I have a somewhat different perspective on this. I use my own models, purchased models & free models in my compositions. I sometimes credit model sources & sometimes don't. It depends on how prominent the model is in the overall composition or how many I've used. I tend to use models as a form of primitive object. I distort them, apply booleans to them, texture them in unusual ways, etc. & use them in ways that often make them unrecognizable. In that context, if I have obtained the models in a legal way (either through purchasing them or because they were given away by their creators without strings attached) & I am not violating copyrights, I don't feel I'm morally obligated to credit every model I use every time. It would also be a tedious task to keep track of the models I use in each composition - I view creating art as play & that would make it more like work.

That said, I do periodically credit modelers whose work has become an important input to my own, just out of gratitude. And for those who use models in a more straightforward way & that feature them prominently in their completed work, it does make sense to credit them.

I’m sorry, but I must say here that most artists that create models for general free consumption often ask to be accredited so in those frequent cases I must say they must be given credit fully due. The artist that uses another person’s creations must be mindful of that and NOT claim that the image they present to the public using those models is “entirely” of their own creation only or mislead people to believe such.

If I were selling royalty free models with no recognition necessary in the license…that’s another question…those that buy my models under those terms can do whatever they want with them. People need to understand that those works come from someone who decided to take the time to sculpt those models into existence. Those that decide to use those models in composition can only claim that they will add a sought value to their art.

...nice to see you around again Weez!

Not mentioning that certain things were not your work just leads to embarrassment when people comment on the 'great modeling', and you have to explain after the fact. Unless, of course, one has no scruples, and deliberately tries to fool people. Darned near impossible with the number of people who've probably seen or downloaded the very same item. Either way, you wind up with egg on your face.

There was a guy who not so long ago was rendering a poser figure then cutting and pasting them onto a well known artists work without any acknowledgement what so ever. I ripped into him, and he still acted as though he had done nothing wrong and it was me with the problem.

Missed that one, but I've been fooled by those who are very good at photo manipulation. Me is a little slow on the uptake. ;)

I try to credit everything.  It is harder when your content comes from sites other than Renderosity, but I feel the artists and modelers who create content deserve their credit.

When I see somebody accepting compliments for something that is obviously not their work, I feel sorry for them.  I agree that a private site mail message is probably the best way to handle it.

Quest,

I have to disagree with your statement that "most artists that create models for general free consumption often ask to be accredited". I have very rarely found that to be the case. But, in any case, I clearly stated that I was referring to free models "with no strings attached". I would consider asking to be credited a string (which I would honor if I chose to use that person's model). I would urge all modelers who want to be credited every single time their models are used to very clearly state that.

Assuming there were no crediting requirements specified by the model creator:

If I took someone's model of a spaceship & plunked it down on a starry background (which, btw,  I would never do), I would feel obligated to credit them. If I used someone's model of a window & used it on a house that was a relatively minor part of the background of my composition, I probably wouldn't feel obligated to credit them. There are a whole range of cases that fall between those two extremes & I think it's up to the individual artist to determine when to specify credits. If the models are a very prominent part of the image, if I use multiple models by the same creator or if I often use models by a particular modeler, I will credit them - both to offer my appreciation &, as you suggested, to avoid having viewers get the mistaken impression that I created everything in the image from scratch. As an example, in my case, I have often used both free models & purchased models created by MatCreator. They have become part of my tool chest & I almost consider them as primitives in the same way I think of spheres, cubes or metaballs. I periodically credit him, out of appreciation, but I don't feel the need to do it every single time.

And finally, I have never claimed that any image was "entirely" my own or tried to create that impression. There is a tradition in art of using external sources without providing explicit credit. Pop Art used images of celebrities & commercial products (Campbell's soup cans), Surrealist collages used images clipped from books, magazines & newspapers, the current crop of Pop Surrealists use images from tv, movies & popular culture & modern sculptures often are constructed with manufactured components. Picasso said "Good artists borrow. Great artists steal". That may or may not have been said tongue in cheek & I'm not comparing myself to Picasso or claiming to be a great artist - I just don't think it's necessary to credit the source of every component of a piece of art.

This thread has giver me pause for thought because I am one of those who rarely credit freebie providers. My runtime is 97gb and I just cant remember where all the stuff came from and have no intention of spending hours trying to track it down. If a new model inspires my work then I will probably credit it, as with Martins Vue houses I used recently, but not s a matter of course.  My problem is that many people I hold in high regard have posted to this thread and I seem to be in the wrong. I have therefore just returned to my earlier post and disabled comments so at least I cant be credited with anothers models.  I have always assumed that anyone  posting a pic with their own models would say so and those that have gone the "usual"  route and downloaded need not. Perhaps I can understand why a modeller would be upset if I use his models without cedit but should I then be just as upset if I post an image that contains perhaps $30 worth of content and has taken 3 or 4 days to create and then receive comments from only a fraction of the viewers after I have made it freely available to them?
On a slightly different tack I rarely buy any of the wonderful models of people like Stonemason simply because they make up the bulk of the work. You cant stick a figure in and claim credit but someone will probably praise you for the modelling/texturing if you post.People rarely read the text under the picture, let alone the credits.
Re reading what I have written it seems tI have  come across as a liittle angry. Im not. Im actually a little sad and dissapointed. Seems I may have annoyrd some people. So, my apologies and thanks for all past and future freebies.

You know, a lot of this is platform specific. No one is going to think a human figure in Bryce (or Poser) was modeled by the poster. In Max, Lightwave, or Cinema, however, it could be an original model, so mentioning it's Poser is a good idea. At arch viz sites, purchased models are routinely used, and no one mentions the modelers unless someone asks where they can find it.

I give away a lot of my wonky models, and don't expect anyone to list them, unless they use a lot of them to fill a whole room. Then a mention would be expected. Finding them on sites for sale is not tolerated, though. (No redistribution is my only restriction.)

Sambucus, the people we get irritated with are those who snag a free scene, hit render, and take all the credit without mentioning they did virtually  no work. Sort of like me taking an Orbital render, and using it as a background for a cube. Oh, great. Now I want to render a cube and paste it on an Orbital render just to see what it looks like. :X

Quote - Sort of like me taking an Orbital render, and using it as a background for a cube. Oh, great. Now I want to render a cube and paste it on an Orbital render just to see what it looks like. :X

waiting patiently.... 

Yes, well, several problems have cropped up. First, looking through orbital's gallery, I got lost in a multitude of beautiful worlds. Second, snagging one of those gorgeous worlds just feels like heresy. Third, which one of those beauties do you ruin with a cube?

Fear not.......the older I get, the mouthier I get.  ;-)

Well Ardiva, good to see you back...mouthy...lol.

Maybe I didn’t make myself clear the first time. Quite simply said eyeland, if you use an artist’s work, that artist should be given credit especially if that artist asks for it. If that artist doesn’t, then it’s fine but an effort should be made to give the credit where credit is due especially if it is not your work. Otherwise you’re simply a copyright thief..that's all there is to it.  That’s as simple as I can get…hope you understand.

Quest, with all due respect, it may be as simple as you can get, but that doesn't make it a fact. Using a purchased or free 3d model that explicitly states you can use it for commercial or non-commercial use, without specifically crediting it, is perfectly legal & is not copyright theft. It may offend your own personal sense of ethics, but that doesn't make it illegal.

3d models that are made available by their creators, whether for free or for profit, are designed to be used by others in works of art - that is their purpose. That's very different from say, the copyright  case brought against Shepard Fairey for his use of an AP photo as the basis for his famous Obama poster. In that case, a copyrighted photo that the photographer did not intend or explicitly state could be used by others was used as the basis for a poster. Even that case is, as far as I know, still not settled conclusively. If the photographer had sold the right to use the photograph in a commercial work & had not specifically stated that he desired to be credited (as is very standard practice with stock photography, which is probably the closest parallel to the use of 3d models), I believe he would have been laughed out of court.

I have to keep restating that I do appreciate the work of model creators & often credit them. The fact that not tediously mentioning every single model I use every single time I use them doesn't meet your particular personal set of  standards does not make me a copyright thief - it just makes you judgmental. I'm really not looking to start a personal confrontation here, but I don't appreciate being called a thief. I would hope we can agree to disagree respectfully on something that is clearly not as cut & dried as you tried to make it sound.

I think we’re getting crossed here. First off, I’m not discussing purchased works since it is obvious that when a creator puts their work up for sale to be used in other works its use is implicit in the copyright agreement. Copyright comes into existence the instant a work is created and that copyright is vested to the work’s author. It is in the transference of that copyright that holds the conditions of the work’s use. When I sell an art piece I draw up a contract of copyright transference in which I set the conditions under which that piece will be used, reproduced and to what extent amongst other things like payment and royalties depending on final use. The copyright remains with me as its author (creator) and if the conditions of that agreement are not met I can pursue legal avenues.

When artists decide to put their works up for free or in the public domain they place conditions of that transfer whether it be not for commercial use or to be used freely in any way or for a simple credit mention back to the author. These are conditions of copyright transference. So if an artist asks for credit mention why would we repay their kindness and hard work by begrudging and disrespecting the conditions of the transfer? We are quick to grab the free labor of others but too lazy to give them mention for their generosity when we are praised for our great artistic endeavors when using their work.

The question of Shepard Fairey and Mannie Garcia is one of derivative works. Where one work is created from a prior preexisting work and is covered under U.S.C. Title 17 Chapter 1 §103(b):

“The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.”

 Just like "The Westside story" and "Romeo and Juliet"

 Well put Quest. :)

Quest - Now you're saying "So if an artist asks for credit mention why would we repay their kindness and hard work by begrudging and disrespecting the conditions of the transfer?". We were clearly discussing the case where an artist does NOT ask to be credited - that was stated very clearly. I also said in a previous post in this thread  that I would, of course, honor a request to be credited if it were made by the content creator.

We seem to be going around in circles here, covering the same ground over & over. To summarize my position one last time:

If I use a 3d model, free or purchased, I always abide by the terms specified by the model creator. If they request credit, I will credit them.

If I use a 3d model, free or purchased & it features prominently (that's a subjective judgment, of course) in my completed artwork, I will credit the creator whether or not they requested it.

If I use 3d models, free or purchased, by a particular creator frequently in my artwork, I will periodically credit them, whether or not they requested it.

Does that make me a copyright thief, lazy, ungrateful, or morally despicable? I guess that's a judgment each person has to make...

Well, I will agree with you that this seems to be getting redundant so maybe we should cut it loss. But it is statements such as:

“I sometimes credit model sources & sometimes don't. It depends on how prominent the model is in the overall composition…”

“I don't feel I'm morally obligated to credit every model I use every time. It would also be a tedious task to keep track of the models I use in each composition - I view creating art as play & that would make it more like work.”

"That said, I do periodically credit modelers whose work has become an important input to my own..."

That glares out and beckons discussion.

My scenes are often so complex and have so much content from all over, allI can say is*"characters from DAZ, A_part_from_Rendo*" etc. I try at times ot name some parts especially if it's the only main thing. :)

here's one of my pics to see what I mean.

I give away freebies, it's nice for folk to credit me :)

what gets me MAD is if they claim THEY made it (my biggest hate) or use it commercially.
heck I won't get mad if a basic material get's used commerically I mean like...duh it's only a mat!
(complex textures though can be another matter, never  mind my commercial mat collection)
but models, heck yes that gets me angry if someone used 'em commercially (especially fan art ones which aren't legal for such purposes)