is it me or is the marketplace littered with products which are clearly rip offs of stuff in the movies and suchlike, some unchanged or barely changed names.

Is this normal? I would have thought that this was not in the least bit appropriate.  I'm not naming any products, as I've no axe to grind with anyone.  Just thought that since the community as a whole is very keen on protecting their own works and products that copying something from a film would be at odds with that position.

John

tis an ongoing bugbear of mine as well.. and it's not going to change mores the pity.

soon as you raise the point, you get told about copyrights and trademarks and tradedress and how small changes etcetcetc

but nothing on the ethics of copying something from a movie etc and then selling it.

I guess it's because people like to recreate stuff from their favourite movies. I see it as fan art more than as a rip off. Then again, I'm known to make everything and anything into Harry Potter characters, so I'm most likely biased on this one L My own Burlap Buddy is also very heavily influenced by the little guys in "9", that's no secret either. I made it because I loved that movie and figured others might, too :) 

Is it any different than to attempt to make celebrity clones? Not to me :) (but then again, I don't know how you feel about those)

If I knew how to believably scale legs ect in a pose / morph file, I would have attempted one of the Avatar guys as well :) 

 I'm not going to say anything in either direction (as apparently my opinion differs with that of the admin), but if you have concerns about a product, I'd recommend an email to copyrights@renderosity.com or store@renderosity.com

Quote - tis an ongoing bugbear of mine as well.. and it's not going to change mores the pity.

soon as you raise the point, you get told about copyrights and trademarks and tradedress and how small changes etcetcetc

but nothing on the ethics of copying something from a movie etc and then selling it.

I dont really object to it, if it's a movie someone has taken as ispiration for something, but an out and out copy seems oddly discordant.

There are all sorts of rules about image content and suchlike, but a blatantly copied product can be sold in the marketplace without a problem.

It's a tricky one, if people and fans buy the product and are happy, then there is clearly a market for them, however just because the copyright holder is sufficiently removed from the community
is it ok to do it?

I guess it puts the onus on the copyright holder to object to a product, which is so unlikely no one worries about it. 

I don't know the specific law that covers this area, but I suspect that if Rendo host it, and profit from it, that they would be liable in some way.  Especially since all products are vetted by them first.

John

It's a tricky one, if people and fans buy the product and are happy, then there is clearly a market for them, however just because the copyright holder is sufficiently removed from the community
is it ok to do it?"

bingo! Ethics ;)

Quote - I guess it's because people like to recreate stuff from their favourite movies. I see it as fan art more than as a rip off. Then again, I'm known to make everything and anything into Harry Potter characters, so I'm most likely biased on this one L My own Burlap Buddy is also very heavily influenced by the little guys in "9", that's no secret either. I made it because I loved that movie and figured others might, too :) 

Is it any different than to attempt to make celebrity clones? Not to me :) (but then again, I don't know how you feel about those)

If I knew how to believably scale legs ect in a pose / morph file, I would have attempted one of the Avatar guys as well :) 

Being inspired or influenced is one thing, that's a big part of creating for most arty types.  A complete copy is something else.

Celeb clones is a wierd one, I have no idea about that one :)  I don't think it is much different to copying a design, but I don't think mother nature is too jealous of her copyright rights :)

John.

Quote -  I'm not going to say anything in either direction (as apparently my opinion differs with that of the admin), but if you have concerns about a product, I'd recommend an email to copyrights@renderosity.com or store@renderosity.com

Hey Jen :) I thought you was an Admin? anyway think I'll give that a miss, since it don't take a genius to attribute any concerns raised in my direction.

Besides, it's not for me to impose a morality upon any vendors, in my opinion, if Rendo ok it then thats that.

I was simply confused by the contradictory position it seems to indicate.

John.

 Nope ;)  I"m a Senior Moderator, which only means that I've been here for way too long to get away with saying I've retained any sanity :P

I'd contribute more..but, well, anyone who's discussed the ethics/legal side of the business with me ever knows my opinion, lol, and it's not in-line with the admin, so that's about all I can say without starting anything.

I don't know, John.  The watchdogs that be sometimes drop the ball where some fo these products are concerned.  It might be out of pure ignorance that questionable content do make it to the marketplace, but I have seen several products appear, stay awhile, then mysteriously disappear very soon afterwards.  Fortunately, Rendo seems to comply very well with pulling those violations.  But, again, how much of the game is based on legal knowledge.  If you clearly create and distribute content for profit without due permission and license, you will find yourself in more than local hot water. 

 Copying IS easier than doing an original design that might be ignored or unbought. From a merchant perspective, doing something you like AND is popular is more likely to sell.

Personally, I don't want to use any clone item because it's a clone item. If it is recognizable as coming from source material-- it SEVERELY limits my ability to use it in original material I create. Changing textures will only go so far. If I have to rebuild something, so it's not immediately recognizable, I might as well as not bought it in the first place! Cheaper,too! :laugh:

I find myself to be obsessed about not using ANYTHING right out of the box without modifying it in some way that makes it less recognizable as what it was to begin with. I'm not profficient enough a modeler to turn out all original stuff everyday.

Bottom line is, I want all original stuff. If I see something inspired by something but is not immediately recognizable--THAT is the stuff I buy!

Quote -  Nope ;)  I"m a Senior Moderator, which only means that I've been here for way too long to get away with saying I've retained any sanity :P

I'd contribute more..but, well, anyone who's discussed the ethics/legal side of the business with me ever knows my opinion, lol, and it's not in-line with the admin, so that's about all I can say without starting anything.

A Senior Moderator eh? a grand position indeed :) and yes you probably have been here way to long to retain too much sanity ;p

I'm slightly curious about the much mentioned Admin, my paranoia bone is twitching like crazy :)

John.

Quote - I don't know, John.  The watchdogs that be sometimes drop the ball where some fo these products are concerned.  It might be out of pure ignorance that questionable content do make it to the marketplace, but I have seen several products appear, stay awhile, then mysteriously disappear very soon afterwards.  Fortunately, Rendo seems to comply very well with pulling those violations.  But, again, how much of the game is based on legal knowledge.  If you clearly create and distribute content for profit without due permission and license, you will find yourself in more than local hot water. 

It is of course possible that the person checking products for release doesn't know about the source it may be copied from, a bit of human error is always possible.  Not everyone sees every film or reads every book.

I guess from a merchant point of view you take your chances, from Rendos point of view I can see them being concerned about it because the legal penatlies are probably terrifying.

I dunno, for me if someone is making a quality copy of something, it seems a shame not to put those talents to more original use.

John

Quote -  Copying IS easier than doing an original design that might be ignored or unbought. From a merchant perspective, doing something you like AND is popular is more likely to sell.

Personally, I don't want to use any clone item because it's a clone item. If it is recognizable as coming from source material-- it SEVERELY limits my ability to use it in original material I create. Changing textures will only go so far. If I have to rebuild something, so it's not immediately recognizable, I might as well as not bought it in the first place! Cheaper,too! :laugh:

I find myself to be obsessed about not using ANYTHING right out of the box without modifying it in some way that makes it less recognizable as what it was to begin with. I'm not profficient enough a modeler to turn out all original stuff everyday.

Bottom line is, I want all original stuff. If I see something inspired by something but is not immediately recognizable--THAT is the stuff I buy!

It seems to me that as a merchant here (or anywhere) you are kind of expected to be somethign of a multi talented genius.  A designer to come up with original exciting projects, a modeller who can realise those designs, a texturer who can paint them and a marketer who can sell them to the world, among other things :)

It seems to me that a talented marketer could probably sell alot of a mediocre product, whereas a great modeller could probably sell a few of a terrific product, while a great designer will probably sell nothing at all.

How many of us are all three, yet how many of us work together to get all the skills required?

John.

     I used to be a fashion designer in the garment industry.
Corporate would go to the haute couture fashion shows, make a purchase, bring back a garment and tell us to "knock it off". It was not only legal, but a huge part of their business.
  When it comes to fashion, there is very little that has not been done before. The originality comes from how the model "looks" in it, the accessories and composition of the image as artists that we create.
   I am not justifying or condoning this. I am simply pointing out how the fashion industry works and the legality of it that I have seen.
cheerio
lululee

Quote - I guess it's because people like to recreate stuff from their favourite movies. I see it as fan art more than as a rip off. Then again, I'm known to make everything and anything into Harry Potter characters, so I'm most likely biased on this one L My own Burlap Buddy is also very heavily influenced by the little guys in "9", that's no secret either. I made it because I loved that movie and figured others might, too :) 

Is it any different than to attempt to make celebrity clones? Not to me :) (but then again, I don't know how you feel about those)

If I knew how to believably scale legs ect in a pose / morph file, I would have attempted one of the Avatar guys as well :) 

I see requests in the forums all the time for video game character textures, movie props especially vehicles, and celeb morphs. I neither supply items nor direct these requests to places that they can find what they are after but it hasn't stopped me from using ST or TNG items that are in the free stuff here. Back in the P4 days everyone wanted Laura Croft Tomb Raider clones. There were a lot of them here at one point. I've never used one mostly because I don't render those types of scenes but I have used the side arms that were made for her.

Like Trekkie, I believe in fan art. I have rendered a lot of it over the years. BUT In the old days we had to do it in 2D or maybe dress up and do video. Now we model it in 3D and to me there lies the crux of the matter. Good modeling and texturing can make an object that is virtually identical to the original but it is not the original and as long as you do not portray it as such I see no problem. Where I do see a grey area that has to be watched is when a person takes a resource such as a mesh or a texture; makes almost no modification to the original and then portrays it as an original work and puts it up for sale. That to me is a problem. One has to remember though that as Poser users every one of us has modified a mesh or retextured an object. It is the nature of the beast that we use to make our art.
pdg

Quote -  I'm not going to say anything in either direction...

And you knowing when to do that is what makes you such a good Moderator. :thumbupboth:

You two take care... :wub:

As far as the topic goes, I have mixed views, myself.  Free fan stuff and celebrity look-alikes are fine,  (a friend's sister used to work as a Cher impersonator) but if it 's too close, and it's for sale, that dosn't feel right to me, but that's a judgement to be made by the copyright holder.

I saw a recent Poser character whose promos were very close to another vendor's promos for an earlier product, but since the original vendor apparently hasn't complained, it must be OK...

Quote -      I used to be a fashion designer in the garment industry.
Corporate would go to the haute couture fashion shows, make a purchase, bring back a garment and tell us to "knock it off". It was not only legal, but a huge part of their business.
  When it comes to fashion, there is very little that has not been done before. The originality comes from how the model "looks" in it, the accessories and composition of the image as artists that we create.
   I am not justifying or condoning this. I am simply pointing out how the fashion industry works and the legality of it that I have seen.
cheerio
lululee

I too spent many years in the rag trade and completely understand and agree with you. A big part of my work was dye matching and print design so we could replicate the fashions of others and produce cloth that had yet to be copied by the other houses. As long as they did not use our labels or we theirs there was no legal problem. It was only when "knock offs" were portrayed as originals that there was an issue.
pdg

Quote - > Quote -  Nope ;)  I"m a Senior Moderator, which only means that I've been here for way too long to get away with saying I've retained any sanity :P

I'd contribute more..but, well, anyone who's discussed the ethics/legal side of the business with me ever knows my opinion, lol, and it's not in-line with the admin, so that's about all I can say without starting anything.

A Senior Moderator eh? a grand position indeed :) and yes you probably have been here way to long to retain too much sanity ;p

I'm slightly curious about the much mentioned Admin, my paranoia bone is twitching like crazy :)

John.

Mouse over the "About Us" tab up top, click on "The Team" at the bottom ;)  Admin are listed at the bottom ;)

WandW - Thanks!  And we're doing well for now...just REALLY IMPATIENT AND UNCOMFORTABLE, lol.   But, that's par for the course, lol.

If it's a blatant rip-off. It snuck through because someone wasn't aware it was a ripoff. Report it to admin and it will get removed just like the complete rip-off of RoboCop was once it was pointed out. (And Yeah I wanted that RoboCop but I couldn't afford it! But BOY Was it accurate!)

 Well as an example, I made my Sevvie character - and no it does NOT look like Movie!Snape at all (at least not in my eyes) but I still had to rename it from the original "Severus" to Sevvie once someone found it too close. The amusing thing is I nowhere in the promo hinted anything about it being "Snape" or mentioned anything Harry Potter-ish at all. I did have a rendition of a Morsmordre in the background though, but again, nothing outright mentioned.

I was told it had "slipped through" because my tester weren't familiar with the Potterverse. And it's fine with me; I'm probably one of the only people in the world (or os it seems) who has never seen nor read Lord of the Rings - but I know even Daz made their High Fantasy based on it - I would never have noticed that myself though, I was just told that it was.

I don't think my Sevvie is a "Blatant ripoff" at all, he's more my interpretation of the BOOK character. Sure it's still "fanart" in a way,but it's not a Rickman clone and it doesn't even look like JKR's early drawings of Him either. It's MY interpretation of a big-nosed, pale, skinny dark-haired guy who likes to dress in robes L

So is that a rip off? 

What defines a rip off? Is it like the difference between being "easy" and being a whore? One charges for the service, the other does not?

Is money the issue?

(and I'm genuinely curious and not trying to defend myself or tout my own horn or anything. Just curious because IMO the Poser galleries would be pretty empty if you couldn't use some clone of something, be it a celebrity morph, a prop or a fancy dress.

I'm not a designer. I never claimed to be. So I can't "just model " a dress in my own design.. Or rather I can, it's one of those that looks like they were sewn from a flour sack... Should I ever model something fashionable, I would need a reference - especially since fashion is something I'm SO not interested in... 

Poser is - among other things - about creating believable pictures. To make a believable Sci-Fi setting you'd have to use something that signals "Future/Sci-Fi" - and it's becoming hard to find something that hasn't been done to death in SOME or other movie L

And when I make fan art pictures with Snape, I WANT it to look like Snape and I WANT the surroundings to look Hogwarts-y. I'm always checking new scenes and props for any usability based on how "hogwarts" they are... And surely I'm not the only one making THAT kind of pictures?!

The only real way to rell is when one person takes the other to court and its fought out there.
I report these issues to the copyright holder if I believe a violation has occured. Then its up to them how they proceed.

I avoid the Harry Potter stuff because it is fine for some artists but it generated a bunch of kiddie porn that was a pain to get cleaned up, not here and not  at rotica that I know of.  It is clearly not the responsibility of a character creator if that figure is misused but you know its going to happen.

I think this discussion needs to take account of whether an item is legally available from the originitaor of an artical at a reasonable price. eg. I have been considering whether or not to model the entire bridge from the the new star treck film and release it as a freebie. The makers of the film have not made and released such a 3D model so would that be unethical or illegal?

I believe that some ideas, such as Star Treck - the original series, have become part of the world culture and should be beyond the creators ability to impose copyright. The bible can't be copyrighted, can it?

I think that in the European Union it is now unlawful to exploit the image of another person - not sure though

 Apple_UK, that's not actually how copyright law works, and most of copyright law actually does extend across international borders with acts such as the Berne Convention.

And, yes, there ARE versions of the bible that are protected under copyright law.  The actual words in it are not copyrighted, however the collection of the book itself, including added footnotes and study guides, are protected.

Copyright is meant to protect the original creator, not to give rights to anyone wanting to ride on the coat tails of the creator.  Paramount has been known in the past to be VERY strict about their copyrights regarding Star Trek, so I would venture into that territory with care.  

In the end, this is more about ethics.  Is it right to take someone else's hard work and creativity and create something based on it?  Some say it's ok, some say that it's not.  Whether or not it's right to take and convert something that one entity has created from one medium to another (by convert, I don't mean take a tangible item and make it 3D.  I mean even the act of taking a 2D image and using it as a reference to create the same object in 3D, and vice versa) is a highly debatable subject (and you guys are free to discuss it at length in the Copyright and Ethics forum ;)  You'll be surprised at what people from other areas of the community have to say about the subject!).  The legal end is, if you take from a big enough player, you may end up being taken to court, no matter where you are.  To tell yourself otherwise is lying to yourself.

Attached Link: http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

Hello JenX:

I wasn't sure about the legality or the ethics so I have refrained from making it. And you are right - it is someone else's hard work, and investment.

Quote -    
Corporate would go to the haute couture fashion shows, make a purchase, bring back a garment and tell us to "knock it off". It was not only legal, but a huge part of their business.
lululee

Just to underscore lulu and parkdale, its a practice in many businesses. Industrial espionage is here to stay. 
Movies like "Snakes on a Train",  "Transmorphers" and "30,000 Leagues Under the Sea" are all capitalizing on the existence of the original but couldn't replace or exist without the source.

Fugazi's original thread subject (funny considering the meaning of your login name and Simpson-style avatar) (oh, I mean that lol-funny not suspiciously-hypocritical-funny) (but I digress)

I don't know which products you mean specifically, that's OK. I did buy a morph that clearly was meant to be Dame Judy and while it is a really good older female morph and texture always have qualms using it because it is so her. 

To me, there is nothing wrong with riding the stream in the direction that the market is flowing.

In the computer biz, on the internet, there's just a lot of plain out and out thievery. They know it. They don't care. They are in it for the money not the character-building-Ayn-Rand-reading-ethics of knowing themselves as a creator of an original idea.

I, too, have to earn money but I can't drop what I'm doing and start modeling scimitars just because Prince of Persia is going to open.  But seeing it now in print doesn't seem like such a bad idea. 

OK, maybe the horse is dead, I'll stop. : )
 
 

actually, I see it as the other way around;  one day I woke up and realized all the Hollywood movies were based on comic books...;)

So the Film industry seems to get more 'Poserlike' every day...;)

Quote - actually, I see it as the other way around;  one day I woke up and realized all the Hollywood movies were based on comic books...;)

So the Film industry seems to get more 'Poserlike' every day...;)

The difference is Hollywood actually pays the licensing fees to use said comic books.

Quote -
Fugazi's original thread subject (funny considering the meaning of your login name and Simpson-style avatar) (oh, I mean that lol-funny not suspiciously-hypocritical-funny) (but I digress)

I'm slightly curious as to which meaning of the word Fugazi you are using there :) there are a few.  Also I didn't choose it for it's meaning :) well mostly not, it's my favourite Marillion song :)

John

Quote -
And, yes, there ARE versions of the bible that are protected under copyright law.  The actual words in it are not copyrighted, however the collection of the book itself, including added footnotes and study guides, are protected.

I belive all modern  versions of the Bible are copyrighted.  The original Greek/Hebrew/Latin/Aramaic scriptures of course aren't, but the translations are able to be copyrighted by the translators...

As I understand it, you can't copyright an idea (story, character, title, names, etc), but you can trademark one. Specific comic books are copyrighted, but I expect that the characters are trademarked, and trademark laws seems, to me, to be far more weighted in favour of the owner of the trademark. (I'm still remembering Thomas Dolby being successfully sued by Dolby for using their trademarked name, even though he was only using the name he was born with).

So, I'm not sure whether the dark glasses and leather trenchcoats from the Matrix could be copyrighted, for example. Or that it would violate any laws to create content based on them. Unless, like the Superman outfit, those Matrix outfits are also trademarked.

I would think that would explain why there are a thousand look alike fashions available at Wal-Mart, but as soon as a manufacturer puts a copied label on a knock-off it becomes counterfeit and illegal because the label, not the design, is trademarked.

[quoteI would think that would explain why there are a thousand look alike fashions available at Wal-Mart, but as soon as a manufacturer puts a copied label on a knock-off it becomes counterfeit and illegal because the label, not the design, is trademarked.

That's what Lulu and I said earlier. Also in fashion, print pattern and colour are also trademarked. With colour though only the name of the colour is trademarked not the actual colour itself. I could trademark "cranberry-orange red" but not actually the colour as you perceive it to be. At least that is my experience from the real world of fashion.
pdg

I preffer fantasy to scifi. I'm a huge Dungeons & Dragons nerd. So for years I've been making fantasy spaceships based on a D&D settings called "Spelljammer" :)

obviously I am NOT gonna sell 'em, jeesh, I just adore the beautiful ship designs, the imaginative concept of the setting, but I couldn't design those original ships: fantastic original artistry but..even they were part based on real life organisms like a nautilus

I take original gorgeous paitnings and make 'em into 3D objects with interiors, decks etc that "work"

original creators obviously didn't have 3D to work out what decks etc would really be plausible, but I can and do.
I do it for fun and to help fellow gamers :)

but...

copyright, IP etc is being abused by the corporations, I'm rally mad at that and scared of where it will go, it's sure not about protecting artists (corporations want eternal copyright..think about it. Even dictators eventually die, corporations do not. See Sony's DRM root kits, way coproates have corrupyted politics etc)

how in hellfire can you trademark/copyright a COMMON phrase, for pity's sake, eh? or genes?

stealing someon'es car is obviously heinous, but building it from a photo in 3D is meant ot be a crime!?

mad, all barking mad :/

Quote - > Quote -

Fugazi's original thread subject (funny considering the meaning of your login name and Simpson-style avatar) (oh, I mean that lol-funny not suspiciously-hypocritical-funny) (but I digress)

I'm slightly curious as to which meaning of the word Fugazi you are using there :) there are a few.  Also I didn't choose it for it's meaning :) well mostly not, it's my favourite Marillion song :)

John

I've always liked it because it's one of my favorite bands, LOL

Marillion, ah, when music was still mostly good :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7sIzWKHGwQ

try this one for size them Silver!
www.youtube.com/watch

I dont know if this has been said yet or not (sorry, guys, not wading through it all), but...

If you're creating stuff for fan art, have the decency to give it away for free. I have serious issues with folks who think it's okay to make a buck "appropriating" from a film when our own community cant wait to rush for the torches and pitchforks when a freckle from a skin texture shows up in someone else's work.

And yes, the "freckle" reference is real. To others who might remember, what was it, five years ago? Completely ruined the merchant in question, even though the evidence was scanty and specious at best.

Corporations as a rule don't judge their own potential or intended copyright violations by ethical standards... just by cost/benefit. Kinda like how drug companies calculate litigation attrition as a factor in dangerous drug releases (the plaintive and heirs die or run out of money before the judgment if you can string the case out long enough and if you must make a settlement you can just drag your feet paying it off over a decade or two or just flat out fail to comply) and the makers of the Pinto who decide that the wrongful death settlements at 100K each or so for maybe two dozen people burned to death was more cost effective then the $7 per unit production cost of making the car safer. Insurance companies make a practice of declining claims since each time they reject a claim half of policy holders abandon the effort... the standard is to "settle the claim at 50%-80% if the policy holder sticks out three efforts to decline the claim. BTW reading industry literature and stockholder reports you learn that 99% of the much vaunted "insurance fraud" is perpetrated by insurance agents rather than consumers. No real point here... just that I always find it interesting when this stuff is cast as an ethical rather than practical issue when the profit makers so far as I know only consider it from the economic vantage. If existing copyright and trademark standards were applied retroactively the art of the twentieth century would be pretty thinned out and there would be no public libraries but on the other hand we would also never have seen Microsoft get away with stealing the GUI Apple legally acquired from BELL Corp.

I would by no means recommend individuals apply the same ethical standards as corporations do... I only think the double standard is an interesting feature of our society.

Quote -
And yes, the "freckle" reference is real. To others who might remember, what was it, five years ago? Completely ruined the merchant in question, even though the evidence was scanty and specious at best.

I did a search and came up with one from '03.  Oooff-ugly stuff... :sad:

Yeah, it wasnt pleasant. It got incredibly stupid around here for a couple of weeks.

Yeah, copyright threads have a bit of nasty history around here. Clark 1.0.

Quote - Yeah, copyright threads have a bit of nasty history around here. Clark 1.0.

Ah the Stomping Foot incident L

Not sure what the freckle thing was unless it was the ****MeOK thing? Someone enlighten me PLZ! There has been so many of these cases over the past decade. I can't remember them all but now I'm curious L (the "glaring at a traffic accident" kind of curious, unfortunately. Can't help it. I AM one of those who glare at accidents...)

Quote -  Personally, I don't want to use any clone item because it's a clone item. If it is recognizable as coming from source material-- it SEVERELY limits my ability to use it in original material I create.

I mostly agree. There are several exceptions in my mind. First, if it draws from multiple sources. For example, there are a lot of outfits which are clearly inspired by certain Anime and manga styles (the collars over the front of the face, the bared midriffs, the pointless buckles), but to me seem to be a mix of several sources inspiration. Second, I found myself wishing that I could find a certain very recognizable outfit (and no, it wasn't from Tomb raider) because I was working on a render of an RPG character of mine cos-playing. But that is clearly a corner case.

I wonder how much clone stuff is for erotic fantasy renders. I think Poser really got established as a product circa 1998 by people wanting to make renders of Agent Scully in the nude. I don't know for sure but I imagine there are more then a few renders of Princes Lea-slash-Darth Vador and Luke Skywalker-slash-Jojo Binks. When I saw the House/Hugh Laurie character in the store I was certain it was intended for prawn - but maybe not without Cuddy and Wilson.

"I wonder how much clone stuff is for erotic fantasy renders"

How much of Poser isnt used fo that? Damn little, I'm sure. It's cheap porn you can DIY. The bulk of women's items in the various stores notwithstanding (I mean, please - how much lingere does a girl need?), considering all the morphs available for just about every female mesh out there, as well as the ones that will take the toons and turn them into barely legal babes... well, the evidence pretty well speaks for itself, I think.

People probably want knock-offs and look-alikes. It's already been said here that people like to watch a movie and then try to render a scene from the movie. Gawd knows why, but they really do.

I used to visit the Daz3d site when I was a platinum member years ago, and I noticed their releases seemed timed perfectly with those of Hollywood. Very shortly after that the galleries were inevitably inundated with thematic renders of recent product.

I think the last time I even considered rejoining the PC club was when the forums/galleries were filled with dying Aslans. That changed my mind in a hurry. It was almost enough to make me lose my breakfast. I prefer Rendo's endless stream of latex hooker/pornstars, frankly. But I suspect it's exactly the same impulse driving both markets, each just servicing a somewhat different demographic.

Not that I'm immune. My favourite Daz clothing, by far, was the SP3 set "Celeste." I don't know why. But I made quite a few renders before the origin of the design for that set ever dawned on me.

I think the last time I even considered rejoining the PC club was when the forums/galleries were filled with dying Aslans.

Huh????? WTF was that? I totally missed that... a Madame Butterfly revival?

Seems like a lot of Poser folk look down on people who use canned content and off the rack subject matter or themes. What is wrong with it? Van Gogh copied other artists and Gogain went all the way to Tahiti to paint from photographic postcards. If a bunch of hobby artists want to do movie theme stuff for fun that seems totally cool to me. Used to be completely respectable to watercolor etchings cut from books... you could even make a modest living selling them.

Quote - Paramount has been known in the past to be VERY strict about their copyrights regarding Star Trek, so I would venture into that territory with care.

The Star Trek and other movie stuff is extremely likely to be trademarked, meaning the owners have to take action to defend it or risk dilution.

I dont see how taking something in 2D (TV screen) and using it as reference for creating something in 3D can be considered copyright infringement. Its not like you hacked into ILM's server and stole the models or anything :p

I have sympathy with your view templargfx, particularly as paramount do not provide 3D virtual models for sale. That's bit like showing a kiddy a toffe then snatching it away from them.