actually its more like showing a kid a picture of a toffe, then grounding him for making his own toffe from scratch :D

Quote - actually its more like showing a kid a picture of a toffe, then grounding him for making his own toffe from scratch :D

Actually it's more like showing a kid a REAL Toffe and THEN Grounding him for making a picture of it from scratch. :tt2:

Quote - 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

Even where there's absolutely no question that you created something from scratch on your own, you may still run trouble if you make use of elements that are trademarked or use a trademark as part of the name.

Quote - > Quote - 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

Even where there's absolutely no question that you created something from scratch on your own, you may still run trouble if you make use of elements that are trademarked or use a trademark as part of the name.

Sorry, but this is really stretching it.

Yes, there are grey areas, like fashion design. In theory, a fashion design cannot be copyrighted or trademarked, not legally anyway. True, there are some companies that will claim it's part of a trademarked "look" and therefore their IP, but under the law as it stands right now, fashion is exempt from both copyright and trademark.

But at the same time, someone sat down, put ass in seat, and sweated through the creation of it. Does that give you the right to just say, "I dont care, I'm stealing it anyway"? Yeah, evil big corporations and all that... been there, done that. You're still ripping off the work of a fellow artist. There is a real person at the other end of that design. Not everything can just be dismissed as "faceless corporate America". Real human beings created that wizard robe or that shield design or that collar detailing. And you honestly feel you have some entitlement to just take that moment of creation away from them for the sake of a buck?

Sorry, but I have a real issue with that. As I wrote earlier in this thread, if you want to throw it in Freestuff and let others use it gratis for the creation of fan art, that's one thing. But the moment you start charging for it? When money changes hands, it becomes a whole different moral ballgame.

I'm asked to create every day in my role as an exhibit designer. Trust me, there are days when I want to just open up the latest issue of DDI and rip off a few ideas. But that's not what I was hired to do. And my work is no more protected under copyright than a fashion designer's, because what I design is considered "architecture", which is also a non-protected category. I've seen some of my stuff show up in other people's portfolios, and trust me: it cheeses me off. But there's nothing I can do about it except let them know I'm aware of their little theft. Sometimes they'll be gracious enough to pull it. Sometimes they wont -- and there's not much I can do about it. But again, it seriously cheeses me off when I see it happen.

So I can imagine how a costumer must feel when s/he looks around the web and sees her/his creations reborn without permission. That designer may not own the design, but someone still had to make it happen. And we should respect that.

 Sean I get what you're saying but I still think there's a difference between "inspired by" and a downright rip-off.

Making a wizard robe that MIGHT look like something from a certain scar-faced young bespectacled wizard's universe is one thing. Meticulously copying it to the slightest thread is something else (but hey.. if someone has.. let me HAVE it LOL)

Fan Art is all about making things recognizable. If you can't see what it's supposed to be, then there's no fan art in it.

Mind you, I've seen HP fanart where it was VERY far fetched. Beautiful art, but it was only because it was posted in the HP fandom that it was ever being recognized as such, I bet. And in a way it's the same with my "book Snape" - he looks nothing like Alan Rickman, but he looks like my mental image of Snape from the books. And people who likes and follows my "art" in the HP fandom knows that this is my rendition of Snape. Even if he looks different from their vision.

Look at this:

This is probably the most awesome Snape-fan art I've ever seen. Yet few people outside the HP (slash) fandom would ever even SEE this as "Snape"

To make fan art *everybody" will recognize, it has to LOOK like the original! And if nobody models it, how can all the non-modelling people ever make fan art?

I agree, TG. Dont misunderstand -- as I said before, if someone wants to model up something and put it in Freestuff so folks can create fan art, go for it. To give the model away implies, in my mind anyway, a certain respect for the person that created the original.

But to put it in the MP? Sorry, that crosses an ethical line. May not be illegal, but it's sure morally questionable. I'd have real trouble purchasing from a merchant who did that.

You talk about the artist that created the original, what about the artist that created the copy?
There time and effort is worth just as much as the original artists.  Its not like when a vender decides to copy somthing it takes a mere 30 seconds to do so

In my opinion it doesnt matter if its an exact copy of whatever it is, be it clothes, tech or architecture.  Design is only one SMALL part of creation of 3D elements. and I dont see any problem AT ALL with a vendor wanting to make money from the time and effort they spent re-creating it in 3D.

Remember (unless I missed the post that sidetracked this thread) we are not talking about a vendor copying something and claiming it as there own design and creation, but simply a vender creating a copy of something that has already been designed in another medium. The former is intollerable

>> "You talk about the artist that created the original, what about the artist that created the copy?"

What about him?

Just because someone has the technical skill to model and rig something doesnt mean I'm supposed to give him a pass for taking someone else's design for the purpose of making money off it. Am I supposed to applaud the guy who makes a film based on a play he does not have the rights to just because he knows how to make a movie?

I think there is no more original art or ideas. Everything is derivative or a slight  extensiopn of something that has gone before. When some tries to be original now we get the nonsense of such as Pollock, or an unmade bed pretending to be art.
 
For instance: The computer consoles in the new star treck movie are echos od  real computer screens and control systems. The pointy ears in Avatar could be Mr Spock's ears. Yhe cosoles in Avatar coulld be real models of Homer Simpson's console Harry potter uses wizadry but there have been wizards since Merlin or before.

Building a 3D model from a 2D source cannot be accurate enough to be anything but derivative I think. Only if the actual texture from the movie etc is used to in a model should it be considered plagerism or breach of copyright.

 Well talking about derivates.. As I understand it, Stonemason takes pictures of actual buildings (his textures seems to imply it, too) and make those in 3D. Well, SOMEWHERE there's an architect or a mason or a simple bricklayer who came up with the idea first.

So those aren't right to make either? 

I once made a dog poop for Poser. And while those Perfectly swirled poops are hard to find IRL, I'm sure some dog originally made it before I did. So I'm plagiarizing that as well

Where does it end? G-D made Adam in His image if you are to believe some old book. So Michael et. al. are plagiates of His work? And I think we're supposed to multiply but by doing so, we're also copying G-D's work...

See? This is getting silly...

(what's even more silly is that I'm using caps and the - way of naming a deity I don't even believe in.... but that's a whole other discussion - and a question of respect or the lack of same)

Quote - >> "You talk about the artist that created the original, what about the artist that created the copy?"

What about him?

Just because someone has the technical skill to model and rig something doesnt mean I'm supposed to give him a pass for taking someone else's design for the purpose of making money off it. Am I supposed to applaud the guy who makes a film based on a play he does not have the rights to just because he knows how to make a movie?

What about an artist that paints a picture of the San Giovanni Laterano Church in exact detail then sells it for thousands of dollars, or the metal smith who creates a miniature replica of the Eiffel Tower and sells that for thousands of dollars.

The first artist didnt design the church, and the seconds didnt design the Eiffel Tower, yet this is normal and accepted the world over as original art.  Just because we've moved from the physical world to the digital doesnt change the fact that a 3D artist is doing exactly the same thing.

Whatever, guys. You have your take on this. I have mine. Let's leave it at that.

 Aw no don't back out now Sean ;)

Honestly, Templargfx has a point, too. Making miniatures or RL paintings of something is quite similar to making a real object into a 3D model. Both are making something from a RL object, yet one is questionable (the 3D object) while the other is (potentially) Art.

Why?

or why not?

Honestly I think this is a highly interesting discussion. We may not agree, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss it :) It's like saying you should only discuss politics or religion (bot of which are not really allowed here, for a reason!) with people with whom you already agree.. but then there isn't much to discuss, is there?

I love discussing both politics and religion with people that are firmly disagreeing with my views.. and then making them doubt their views.. THAT is Gold ;) 

The problem with Copyright discussions is just that though TG. Some folks have elevated the ownership of an idea to the same levels as religious fervor. And they're down right religious in their desire to not be moved for fear it will loose them their salvation in some way. Best just to smile at the notions of those who disagree with you and move on.

On a very OT Tangent, I was just recently in an online discussion with folks about when was the best time to disclose one's HIV status with someone you were forming a relationship with. That discussion degenerated quite rapidly between the two camps of "I disclose because it's the right and honest thing to do" and "I don't disclose because everyone is responsible for their own health and if I wear a Condom I am not responsible for your health". It ended with some nutjob claiming that disclosure would hurt the children in his family because bullies at school would find out and torment the children til they commited suicide. It was just ludicrous!

Quote - >> "You talk about the artist that created the original, what about the artist that created the copy?"

Am I supposed to applaud the guy who makes a film based on a play he does not have the rights to just because he knows how to make a movie?

Shakespeare productions get applauded thousands of times a year, both on stage and on film. Is there something wrong with that? Or does your standard not apply just because Shakespeare had the courtesy to die a few hundred years before modern copyright laws were invented?

It's a bit much to expect every clothing creator at Rendo to create perfectly original designs. That job belongs to fashion designers who very well expect their designs to be copied. If something is dear to the heart of a designer, they can protect it with a trademark, and that obviously needs to be respected. But to expect every single artist to reinvent the wheel with everything they create is absurd. No one could work that way. And copyright laws reflect that.

Quote - The problem with Copyright discussions is just that though TG. Some folks have elevated the ownership of an idea to the same levels as religious fervor. And they're down right religious in their desire to not be moved for fear it will loose them their salvation in some way. Best just to smile at the notions of those who disagree with you and move on.

Well, this seems to be true of discussions about just about anything. People can get remarkably emotional about movie reviews, fast food dishes, the local weather. I'm guessing that if we have the emotional space to get dramatic over something like the moral basis of intellectual property rights, it probably means we have pretty darned easy lives. So that's a good thing.

But really the whole purpose of continuing with a discussion of this nature is not to persuade SM, for example, to a different opinion. He won't be persuaded no matter what anyone says. The purpose of continuing is to share our opinions so that we can bond with those who agree with us, and possibly to persuade the lurkers.

TG, we've been having this same discussion around here since this place got started, and it always boils down to the same points. "You cant use that without permission!" "You're infringing on my creativity!" "Shakespeare!" "Hitler!" *ad nauseum...

*Bottom line is: as I have said three times now, if you want to make something for fan art that's based on someone else's work, I dont mind if you put it in freestuff. But the minute you charge for it, I have real trouble with that. No drama about it; whoever the merchant is will have simply lost me as a customer. As this thread -- and the countless before it -- ably demonstrates, there are those who think otherwise. Good for them. That's their choice, not mine.

Quote -

Shakespeare productions get applauded thousands of times a year, both on stage and on film. Is there something wrong with that? Or does your standard not apply just because Shakespeare had the courtesy to die a few hundred years before modern copyright laws were invented?

Even if they were in effect then, his works would still be out of copyright by now.

Complicating the matter, in spite of the Berne Treaty,  is diferent jurisdictions; for instance, the concept of 'Fair Use" enshrined in US law doesn't exist in many other countries, including, I believe, the EU... ..