Salad Cream and cucumbers...

Alexa (Obj file depicted here) along with "neftoonGal" was one of the Models that cropped into being in an attempt to ride the Extraordinary wave of popularity of the "GIRL" model
A LW model by an artist named Kim goosens.
it is quite ironic that I grew to utterly Despise the Girl when in Fact it was Me who Literally "introduced" her to this community in a forum post called "the koshini Effect"
SEE THREAD HERE
when I posted images from  the original Kim goosens WIP thread
over at the CGChannel Web forums years ago
once the "We must have her!!! " frenzy" ensued
DAZ inc  Bought the model outright from goosens
and began the process of purging the landscape of any
would be Contenders to her albeit  short lived  reign.

Cheers

Ketchup on fries yeah, mustard... "Frenchfried taters 'n mustard, mmhmm."

maonaise only belongs in tuna salad, If a burger joint puts maonaise on my burger when I tell them not to I take it back and tell them I want a burger without the spooge please.

salad cream? WTF is that?

Attached Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salad_cream

Quote - Vinegar sauce on fries... Mmmm...I really miss Arthur Treachers Fish an' Chips. 

Me too-Yum!  Skipper's is pretty good, but greasier than Treachers was, and they are a West Coast chain.

I miss the fries at Fatburger in College Station.  Always hot, and best eaten with ketchup and sliced jalapeños.  Wonderful!

I once had lunch at the McDonalds near the Tower of London.  It tasted like...McDonalds.  Whoda thunk it? :biggrin:

Quote - Retopo(UGH!)...A figure has to have 44 animation edgeloops.  Best to start with a rig of primitives then add your animation edgeloops.

See, Patorak says this because he is a competent modeler (actually a very good one).  You just don't shrinkwrap a bunch of shit around a model and suddenly you have a good model with the same shape, you end up with a shitty model that has kinda-the-same shape.

Quote - you end up with a shitty model that has kinda-the-same shape.

Which will be very Difficult to rig I  imagine.

Cheers

You just don't shrinkwrap a bunch of shit around a model and suddenly you have a good model with the same shape, you end up with a shitty model that has kinda-the-same shape.

Pjz99,  You're a top modeler and i wish they would take your advice and instruction.  i know i have in the past and learned a lot from you(even though you had to beat it into my head,LOL!).

WandW,  Where's the best fish and chips you ever had?

It's the wind up and the pitch and it's a high curve ball just outside...

I know people who take images and place them on a flat plane as a modeling reference and then start creaing pixels in front of the image. I would guess and it is purely a guess, a lot of the cars in the market place are done this way. Whose property is the final mesh? The image creator or the mesh creator?

Before you answer the question, what would happen if the original poster rendered out the train he purchased and then put the render on back ground plane and modeled his own copy in front of it?

I have taken pictures of local buildings and pinned them up next to my computer as a reference because I want the 3D model I was making to have some part of that building in the mesh. Maybe a set of steps, the look of a door, a signs, or a window frame in relation to the size of the building, etc. I am not a reseller of products or renders. I have illustrated stories for friends for give away fiction stories. And yes Vicki did get a divorce from Mike and I have them both entering a close replicia of the front of an office building located in Reno, Nevada. The front of the Washoe county muni court where you really would go for a divorce has been closed for years. (you now enter via a side entrance)  Plus the front of it sucks looks wise.

Don't know about cars... Do know about buildings... Architectual blueprints are the copyrighted work of the architects.  

no one has said personal pride!! if I want to call it mine I want to know I made it

Quote - I would guess and it is purely a guess, a lot of the cars in the market place are done this way. Whose property is the final mesh? The image creator or the mesh creator?

Funny you should ask!  There are two aspects to this, copyright and trademark.  Logos and brand names fall under the trademark category, and if you reproduce a trademarked logo that's trademark infringement.  Trademark law is not quite the same as copyright although there are many similarities.  It is also not ambiguous.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sup_01_15_10_22.html

As to the shape and design of the car itself, at least one fully executed court case (Meshwerks v. Toyota) has established that these things fall under copyright law, and that the copyright belongs to the original designer (in this case Toyota retained all rights to the 3d digital model derived from their design).

http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/tenth_circuit_denies_copyright_protection_for_meshwerks_digital_models_of_c

Again someone will probably come along and dispute this, but whatever, people try to justify software piracy and all sorts of other nonsense too.

Formerly having obtained License for use of Trademark and Copyrighted Designs from a Automaker, I can say if the product appears to resemble any car ever made (I know this is very open) and especially if it contains a brand name or logo... but does not contain a License Statement in the Readme or License naming the manufacturer, run away from the model and do not try to use it in a commercial venture.

For the Automaker to continue to enforce their Trademark, the License Statement must be included and normally is required to be included with any end user work, along with compensation and approval in most cases.

My experience was for a Ford Dealer Commercial and because we created a Model of the car, we had to get permission from Ford. I decided to take it a step farther, with plans on selling the model and the requirements for both me (Up front License Fees, plus a per sale fee) and the end user (authorization of release of work and per use fee) I never did sell the model.

If you want to see an example of the statements, go to any Hobby Store and read a Car Model Box... most have the License statement printed on the Box.

Quote - when would a model become my own?

I have a model of a train paid for.

I have taken said model and chopped it up.into about 8 sections. removed parts of the body. copied other parts and added them. changed the scale of others.

so how much do I have to change to make it my own to do with as I wish,

with out sued?

or would I have to start all over. even if I liked the shape so much that if I did start over it looked like the first one after I had finished chopping?

Just out of curiosity, why do you want to make it "your own"? Do you want to sell it or distribute it? I personally don't see harm in taking someone elses model and mincing it up a bit to create some secondary product you need such as an animation or something like that. In that case you should credit the original author who created the original model just as you would if you had used the original model in its original form. I think most models are intended for people to use them in animations or graphics of some sort. I would think you could do this without being sued so long as you give proper credits or abide by the rules of the creator.

At first glance, I don't understand why anyone would want to sell or distribute something, even in part, which was created by someone else.

Quote -  Most modelling artists watch releases (freebies and for sale) like a hawk, looking for something similar to theirs. 

Generally they will rip your name through the mud eve if it isn't a copyright issue, Iv'e seen some pretty vicious attacks regarding 2 diferent artists creating similar models of their own designs.

Basically both artists made models of similar products so one artists slams the other for "copying" their idea.

Quote - At first glance, I don't understand why anyone would want to sell or distribute something, even in part, which was created by someone else.

Because you might make some money for minimal effort of course.  For example:

http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/3d-model-female-head-morph-targets/579239

only $45!

edit: in case you don't recognize that, that is EF/SM Sydney G2, there is actually a wireframe pic shown in that listing that is exactly the same topology.

edit: in case you don't recognize that, that is EF/SM Sydney G2, there is actually a wireframe pic shown in that listing that is exactly the same topology.

..and Kozoboro hair.

Quote - > Quote - when would a model become my own?

I have a model of a train paid for.

I have taken said model and chopped it up.into about 8 sections. removed parts of the body. copied other parts and added them. changed the scale of others.

so how much do I have to change to make it my own to do with as I wish,

with out sued?

or would I have to start all over. even if I liked the shape so much that if I did start over it looked like the first one after I had finished chopping?

...

At first glance, I don't understand why anyone would want to sell or distribute something, even in part, which was created by someone else.

Trying to look at it from a non-modeler's perspective it could be like this: I want to have a good train-model, but there is none. There is a train-lookalike, but unfortunately, the different parts are completely out of scale, taken from different actual trains and so on. There is this train-expert who is not a skilled modeler, but knows trains, rearranges and rescales the different parts of the first model into a new one, and the result is the perfect train. This is what i (the consumer) want. Of course the train-expert should get at least some money and fame of it, otherwise he would not have done this work in the first place, even if all parts he used were essentially copied. As long as the end-result is to be considered a different thing than the copied parts, it is a creation of its own.

The decision however, if the end-result is a new original work or merely a modified copy, can only be made on a case-by-case basis. In the meshwerks/toyota case there was no originality involved, even though the objects were completely different things (computer-model vs. car), on the other hand for example Jim Gary shamelessly used rearranged car parts to make himself a name (would he have tried to do this with some 3d-vendors car-models, he probably would have experienced some more resistance :-).

Quote - when would a model become my own? 

As Dr. Geep said, the only way a model will ever be your own to sell/distribute or put your name on, is if you created it from the ground up from nothing.  Hacking up an existing model and making changes isn't creating, it's reworking and is considered a derivative.  There are copyright laws that cover "derivatives", however, they are vague and the end decision ultimately lays in the hands of the Judge in a court of law.

Just a quick question because I've never heard it mentioned, but can someone actually sell their copyright to someone else?

Yep.  That's effectively what many bands do when they sign publishing or recording deals.  In return for a writer's credit and a royalty, they surrender copyright to their recordings and the songs contained therein.

Of course, anyone with sense would hold out for a licensing deal instead, since the artist then retains copyright and is free to take the recordings elsewhere after a fixed term.  In the past 30 years or so, many well established acts (Bowie, Stones, Paul McCartney and many more) have set about buying back the rights to their back catalogue.

Just keep in mind that in the case of something later determined to be a derivative work that was done without permission, all rights belong to the originator, and any sales or distribution of the derivative are void.  Hard to enforce that part but that's how US copyright law works.  And again, someone may argue this isn't true, but again those people are stupid and wrong.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#103

Can copyrights,  trademarks and patents be inherited through wills?

I don't know for complete certainty (check with a lawyer) but I do know they can be transferred by sale, as SamTherapy was explaining, so I expect yes.

I used to be a paralegal and did Wills and Estates.  Yes, you can transfer anything through a Will, provided you are specific as to what it is that you are transferring and to whom.  That doesn't mean it can't be contested though.

thanks all for the comments,

it started off as " I will just change that bit and snow balled"

so I guess I will go and make one myself. I know waht I want it to look like so all is not lost.

Great attitude :)  Happy modeling, I'm sure it will turn out well!

Quote - thanks all for the comments,

it started off as " I will just change that bit and snow balled"

so I guess I will go and make one myself. I know waht I want it to look like so all is not lost.

Yeah, just model it yourself. At the end of the day it will be more easier, more gratifying and in the process you get to learn new skills.  It's more rewarding than re-texturing or modifying an existing mesh.

And you don't have to worry about copyright issues, since you  made the mesh yourself and can therefore easily prove it.

Quote - As to the shape and design of the car itself, at least one fully executed court case (Meshwerks v. Toyota) has established that these things fall under copyright law, and that the copyright belongs to the original designer (in this case Toyota retained all rights to the 3d digital model derived from their design).

http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/tenth_circuit_denies_copyright_protection_for_meshwerks_digital_models_of_c

Actually, this isn't what the Court said at all;  In this Case, Meshworks was contracted by Toyota to produce 3D models for a single commerical. These models were registered with the Copyright Office.  Even though they were licensed for a single use, Toyota continued to use the models without paying the Artist.  The Court ruled that an unadorned mesh of an actual physical object lacks the requisite degree of originality for copyright protection, and is therefore not copyrightable.  The issue of derivative works was not dealt with, (and is not even mentioned in the body of the ruling) but any such rights would of course belong to Toyota.  The actual ruling is here.    However, this isn't a license to go ripping off models, as the Court states "Digital modeling can be, surely is being, and no doubt increasingly will be used to create copyrightable expressions. Yet, just as photographs can be, but are not per se copyrightable, the same holds true for digital models."

The moral apparently is, always use a bit of artistic license.  :biggrin:

It goes to show you how poorly defined the Law is in some areas.  Unless you want to be a test case, Be Careful Out There...

Quote - Actually, this isn't what the Court said at all;  In this Case, Meshworks was contracted by Toyota to produce 3D models for a single commerical. These models were registered with the Copyright Office.  Even though they were licensed for a single use, Toyota continued to use the models without paying the Artist.  The Court ruled that an unadorned mesh of an actual physical object lacks the requisite degree of originality for copyright protection, and is therefore not copyrightable.

Take another look at the decision.

"While fully appreciating that digital media present new frontiers for copyrightable creative expression, in this particular case the uncontested facts reveal that Meshwerks’ models owe their designs and origins to Toyota and deliberately do not include anything original of their own; accordingly, we hold that Meshwerks’ models are not protected by copyright and affirm." 

This pretty clearly is addressing Meshwerks' models in particular, and not 3d meshes in general.  It does not say "all unadorned meshes are not copyrightable".

Quote - The issue of derivative works was not dealt with, (and is not even mentioned in the body of the ruling)...

Yes it was:

"In due course, defendants moved for summary judgment on the theory that Meshwerks’ wire-frame models lacked sufficient originality to be protected by copyright. Specifically, defendants argued that any original expression found in Meshwerks’ products was attributable to the Toyota designers who conceived of the vehicle designs in the first place; accordingly, defendants’ use of the models could not give rise to a claim for copyright infringement."

This is the definition of a derivative work, and also see footnote 7.

Kind of scratching my head how you came to that conclusion after reading the whole decision document.  The summary is really black and white:

"If the basic design reflected in a work of art does not owe its origin to the putative copyright holder, then that person must add something original to that design, and then only the original addition may be copyrighted. In this case, Meshwerks copied Toyota’s designs in creating digital, wire-frame models of Toyota’s vehicles. But the models reflect, that is, “express,” no more than the depiction of the vehicles as vehicles. The designs of the vehicles, however, owe their origins to Toyota, not to Meshwerks, and so we are unable to reward Meshwerks’ digital wire-frame models, no doubt the product of significant labor, skill, and judgment, with copyright protection. The judgment of the district court is affirmed, and defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees is denied."

Quote - Yes it was:

"In due course, defendants moved for summary judgment on the theory that Meshwerks’ wire-frame models lacked sufficient originality to be protected by copyright. Specifically, defendants argued that any original expression found in Meshwerks’ products was attributable to the Toyota designers who conceived of the vehicle designs in the first place; accordingly, defendants’ use of the models could not give rise to a claim for copyright infringement."

This is the definition of a derivative work, and also see footnote 7.

You are correct, (I shouldn't read legal briefs so early in the morning; I did read footnote 7, but it is not part of the body of the decision) but that is not the thrust of the decision: the  Court did not rule that Toyota held the copyright to the models; the Court ruled that the mere reproduction of a physical object was not in itself copyrightable, so the models were not subject to protection:

As the Court more recently explained in Feist, the operative distinction is
between, on the one hand, ideas or facts in the world, items that cannot be
copyrighted, and a particular expression of that idea or fact, that can be. “This
principle, known as the idea/expression or fact/expression dichotomy, applies to
all works of authorship. As applied to a factual compilation,” the particular
matter at issue in Feist, “assuming the absence of original written expression,
only the compiler’s selection and arrangement may be protected; the raw facts
may be copied at will. This result is neither unfair nor unfortunate. It is the
means by which copyright advances the progress of science and art.” Feist, 499...

...Key to our evaluation of this case is the fact that Meshwerks’ digital wire-
frame computer models depict Toyota’s vehicles without any individualizing
features: they are untouched by a digital paintbrush; they are not depicted in
front of a palm tree, whizzing down the open road, or climbing up a
mountainside. Put another way, Meshwerks’ models depict nothing more than
unadorned Toyota vehicles – the car as car. See Appendix A. And the
unequivocal lesson from Feist is that works are not copyrightable to the extent
they do not involve any expression apart from the raw facts in the world.

That is, if  Meshwerks had made exact replica meshes of Model T's or ancient Greek statuary, they would still not be copyrightable.

Embelishing a model of a physical object would make it copyrightable, but would not likely remove its status as a derivative work if it were based on a copyrighted work.
(edited to avoid the wrath of the Apostrophe Police)

One other thing; the important consequence of this ruling isn't that certain models aren't protected; it is that original 3D models are indeed protected by copyright, which is why this is such an important case.

Quote - That is, if  Meshwerks had made exact replica meshes of Model T's or ancient Greek statuary, they would still not be copyrightable.

W're kind of saying the same thing there.

Quote - One other thing; the important consequence of this ruling isn't that certain models aren't protected; it is that original 3D models are indeed protected by copyright, which is why this is such an important case.

This is confusing; ok, i understand that original models are copyright protected. Non-original models may be copyright protected if they are derived works. The model from what they were derived from, however, may or may not be copyrighted. But is it not the case that a large number of marketplace items are similar to the toyota car? Meaning, if e.g. Jil Sander took a lightwave course today, tomorrow a lot of merchants here would be surprised who the copyright owner of their model is?

A couple of days ago, a marketplace item had this ominous description in it:

Quote - The names were modified to protect the original work from any copyright issues.

does this mean, that changing a name could prevent one from being sued, or is it just to prevent the vendor from being found by potential copyright holders through search engines? My guess would be, changing the name alone would probably not make an original work, so it made me wondering (was a set of movie poses, btw).

Not necessarily prevent one from being sued.  Depends on several factors.  For the purposes of example, I'll use Disney since they are one the most litigious companies known.

Vendor X makes a model which is very much like a 3D version of Mickey Mouse.  In order to prevent getting sued, he names it Michael Mouse.  A friend advises him the name is too similar so, after a bit of thought he calls it Rodney Rodent.

Rodney Rodent goes on sale at Runtimeosity and somewhere on the line, a bod from Disney hears about it and checks out the screen shots.

Vendor X is then hit with a lawsuit on the basis that the character he sold is obviously derived from their character, Mickey Mouse and, as such, is an infringement of their intellectual property.  Disney wins.

Now, some of you might say the only reason Disney wins is because they can afford a shit hot legal team but the plain truth is Vendor X really did copy their work.

Now here's a real life, actual and genuine true scenario...

SamTherapy makes a model of a Dalek, the well known villain from the BBC tv show Doctor Who.  In order to avoid getting sued, he does not call it a Dalek, does not offer it for sale (it's a freebie) and the readme explicitly states it is not to be used for commercial purposes at all, and also acknowledges the original creators and copyright owners of the Daleks.

None of the above, however, are proof against being sued.  The fact of the matter is, I have copied someone else's intellectual property.  Whether or not I call it something else, charge for it or give it away or whatever I do is besides the point.  If BBC Worldwide and/or the estate of Terry Nation decide to sue me, they'd most likely win.

Of course, since I have nothing and have made nothing from it, they'd get nothing except an apology from me, and an undertaking to withdraw my models.  The downsides for them in that scenario are negative publicity (big company beating up little guy) and a loss of some free advertising for one of their characters.   Some companies take this attitude and allow copies of their stuff for the purposes of "Fan Art".  But remember, that's a privelege, not a right.

And, oh yeah, my Daleks are all available for download in Freestuff here.  :)

What you can or cannot skirt past using the law shouldn't be the issue.  People seem to want to go to great lengths to try and find some kind of loophole or consideration within the law to pass things off as their own creation.  Even as to go so far as to used advanced techniques - topology, approximation, or otherwise closely modeling around something to stubbornly just try to slip past the fact that unless you make something from scratch it is not your model and not your original work.

As has been noted, if you have the skill to do these advanced things and put a lot of emphasis  into being sneaky, why not instead focus that energy on making something that you can truly call your own?

When would a model become my own?
When you create it fully from scratch it is 100% your own model.  How can someone even argue otherwise?  If you did 90% the work, then 10% of it is not yours.

I have a model of a train paid for.
Often you pay for the right to use it for renders and animations, commercially or non-commercially.  I don't even think there is a problem with sticking bits on it or removing parts if you intend to use it in renders or animations.

The big issue comes with "do with it what I wish" - this is a pretty open ended statement.  Should you sell it?  NO.  Should you redistribute it?  NO.  Simply because there are parts of it that are still created by someone else.  Can you distribute some kind of add-on for it?  Most likely YES, as long as no part of the original model is redistributed.

Say you worked months on a great, intricate model that  you put a lot of love and care into.  You decide to sell it.  Someone takes your item and changes some parts of it, repackages it and then sells it and he's riding off of a percentage of work that you spend a great deal of time on.  He might even undercut you, further destroying your time and energy.  Maybe he decides to just give it away.  How would those scenarios make you feel?

The whole "this guy took the feet off of this model" or "that gal took the eyes of of this model" was just an easy way out and a blatant attempt to ride off of the work of others and it boggles my mind.  Why not emphasize getting better at your skill instead?  You know practice.  Learn.  Study.  But do it yourself and have the knowledge and pride  that you did it yourself and wondering about "how much you can get away with" never becomes an issue.

My 2 cents.

Great post Netherworks.

Quote - Great post Netherworks.

Hell yes.

And, of course, it's back to the original point we (most of us) made:

You can call it your own when you made every bit of it.

Amen.

Quote - SamTherapy makes a model of a Dalek, the well known villain from the BBC tv show Doctor Who.  In order to avoid getting sued, he does not call it a Dalek, does not offer it for sale (it's a freebie) and the readme explicitly states it is not to be used for commercial purposes at all, and also acknowledges the original creators and copyright owners of the Daleks.

None of the above, however, are proof against being sued.  The fact of the matter is, I have copied someone else's intellectual property.  Whether or not I call it something else, charge for it or give it away or whatever I do is besides the point.  If BBC Worldwide and/or the estate of Terry Nation decide to sue me, they'd most likely win.

I'd worry more about being...EXTERMINATED!!!  :lol:

Well in defense of SoulTaker it seems he genuinely didn't know and was just asking how it worked, and he's got the right attitude about doing his own model.

Agreed.

The model is my own when the mesh is entirely different and look and feel has more differences than similarities. Whether I have used the other model as inspiration or not is my own business and nobody's concern. If you don't agree you are entitled to sue, in fact I double dog dare you to sue. Otherwise mind your own business.

If you aplly that line of thought to figure creation,  then be prepared to create half a jillion JCM's.

Here's my mkV mesh.  No JCM's,  no spherical fall off zones for the Thighs,  and only 7000 polys.

Quote - Here's my mkV mesh.  No JCM's,  no spherical fall off zones for the Thighs,  and only 7000 polys.

What, you mean you used Capsule zones in Poser 8+?

Quote - ...  Here's my mkV mesh.  No JCM's,  no spherical fall off zones for the Thighs,  and only 7000 polys.

Very nice !!!

Can you post a wireframe of your figure? :blink:

Nah,  i'm using P6 SR3 and Doc's tuts...

Very nice !!!

Can you post a wireframe of your figure?

Thanks!  Sure....(Oops)