to quote

WTF?

Damn vampires.

Laurie

we're gonna need bigger garlic.

Quote - we're gonna need bigger garlic.

Who's playing that damn cello......

And well Sparky you must be verry well informed about those Vip Sharing sites ... Sadly I have to visit the darkside because people steal the work of the artists I sell. When I find that stolen stuff, I try to close these sites down, simple as that. mrsparky if you take a picture of a tatoo on an arm, who is the originall owner of that digital Item ... the one who made the Picture or the one who has the actuall tatoo ??? Good question, which shows how complex copyright it, and the answer is both. The tatoo artist retains the rights to the original image. The photographer retains the rights to their photo. If the artist objects the photographer can't use that photo. It's also the same with other objects. For example photos of the effiel tower at night isn't allowed here, because thats what the owners of the tower have said. But how many people have photographed that? So yes you're right copyright is incredibly complex and confusing. That said we have to respect it, we can't make up our own abartity rules to suit what we want to do.

There are several misconceptions about copyright laws:

1- The US copyright laws are not the world's copyright laws. It are valid only in the US.

2- Each country has its own copyright laws. These laws can have parts that are equal or similar to other countries or can be quite different or even do not exist. In general are very similar, but the most significative difference between the US and other countries is when the non commercial use is involved.

3- The Berne's Convention is only a convention (agreement between countries) and not the US law. This means that the parts of the copyright laws that are common to both countries can be applied from one country to another. The parts that are not common cannot be applied. For example, the Berne Convention stipulates that the duration of copyright is 50 years. In most countries it is 50 years, but the US copyright law says that is 80 years and some countries can have othe duration, smaller or greater. If some work is 30 years old there will be very little doubt and the work will be under copyright in most of the countries signatory of the convention, but if the work is 60 years old, it will be public domain and free to use in most of the countries, but still under copyright in the US.

4- Not all the countries of the world have signed the Berne's Convention. One country that have not signed can have the same copyright laws as the US, but one country cannot enforce the copyright laws in another, even in both countries is a crime. It's like the extradiction agreements.

5- ACTA was rejected by the EU until now. The aceptance of ACTA would mean that the copyright laws in the EU would be exactly the US laws and this was rejected by the European population.

6- The US has refused to sign into the ICC, so the US ins not part of the International Justice.

7- Don't forget that copyrights laws do not exist in Communist countries. China is a Communist country and in real terms is the first economy of the world or if you consider the fake stocks papers, the second economy. You can like it or not, but you must accept that today is China that sets the rules.

8- As for Renderosity as is a site in the US, so is the US copyright that must be applied there for products or anything uploded to the site. For downloads you must obbey the laws of your country. Some things can be legal in the US and illegal in other countries. For example, Poser is illegal in Saudi Arabia.

Um...ur forgetting that THIS SITE is a US site. And the site is gonna follow US copyright first and foremost. And I believe the OP is in the US. I've just solved your misconception.

Laurie

Quote - Um...ur forgetting that THIS SITE is a US site. And the site is gonna follow US copyright first and foremost. And I believe the OP is in the US. I've just solved your misconception.

Laurie

Read item #8 of the list

Several posts here are also not making a distinction between copyright and trademark, and the laws differ according to jurisdiction in this regard also.

The questions surrounding copyright do bring up moral and ethical considerations, and I personally am in favor of a less rigid application.

However, regardless of how you feel about the issues, it is surely in the best interest of US residents to follow US laws, unless it is their intention to use the courts to challenge such laws.

It's absolutely not a good idea for someone who wishes to sell content to disregard the laws of their jurisdication as this can get them in a heap of legal trouble.

But that's all that needed to be said kawecki. Just number 8. The rest rest don't matter for the OP.

Laurie

So f I understand that correctly , If somone sells merchendise to another cauntry the vendor sells on the terms of those ??

If a product is being sold to China Or Russia then the vendor should be avare that hes product can be taken appart and resold. As he by selling to the one in that specific caountry agrees to there terms of use. In this case the eula would only be considered Local by exporting the vendor has to agree to the other cautry's terms.

Now if this is the case Lets talk about saudi .... :-)

If the cauntry specificly Prohibits a product and the Vendor still exports the Product to them he Commmits a smuggling of Illegal product. and could be procecuted by the Cauntry as a Crimminal. so in theory if the grafic or image is being delivered to those by the vendor , then with knowledge he has commited a crime against that specific cauntry , as the law of that cauntry applies by exporting a product.

At least I understand now why this specific Darkside  mentioned by Mrsparky cant be procecuted, if the site is located in a communist cauntry then it must be legal in there inviroment to redestribute the things, as the seller by selling a product to them agreed to there terms !!

Pretty interesting .. so again .... all products sold in the Internet has to fallow the terms in witch they sell there products , same thing with farma Products , the US cant just sell a medecine to another cauntry fallowing there terms the exporter agrees with the caunty's terms by selling to those. 

"If the artist objects the photographer can't use that photo. It's also the same with other objects. For example photos of the effiel tower at night isn't allowed here, because thats what the owners of the tower have said."

* *

So*,* if you have a tattoo, you can't publish a photograph of yourself if the 'artist' objects? Not saying it isn't so, but I'd like to see how long the 'artist' would remain in business. I would also like to see the court ultimately uphold such a ruling. Similarly, I would like to see the tower folks staru suing tourists for putting their photos online.

As they say, you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich and you can get a lawyer to come up with any patently absurd clause you want. What is ultimately deemed legal or illegal boils down to money and little to do with reason or morality Whoevr has the best lawyers, the most well funded lobby, the most powerful pols in their pocket - they usually win. If you don't have large amounts of money and the willingness to spend it then just tuck your head in and go for the safest course.

Quote - But that's all that needed to be said kawecki. Just number 8. The rest rest don't matter for the OP.

Laurie

Actually Laury it is not only Nummber 8 as the redestributor witch exports products has to fallow the terms in witch cauntry he exports not the ones witch are valid in he's own. Accepting there terms the moment you sold the product to those.

so you have to be avare to whom you sell the product as you agree to there terms of usage as soon as you sold it to them. 

Quote - If a product is being sold to China Or Russia then the vendor should be avare that hes product can be taken appart and resold.

Yes, and then they sell back to you at a cheaper price, he, he.

Why do you think why Chinese products are so cheap?, because they pay nothing to the workers or use children to work ? NO !, it are cheap because they pay nothing of royalties, patents, trademarks, copyrights, don't waste money in propaganda and don't pay fortunes to their CEOs.

Quote - As he by selling to the one in that specific caountry agrees to there terms of use. In this case the eula would only be considered Local by exporting the vendor has to agree to the other cautry's terms.

This is another problem, the EULA must be written in the language of the country, documents written in foreign language have no legal value and few countries have English as its language.

Well, in internet this is imposible, you have no idea who is selling or buying and in which country he is. So only remains to hope that people will act in good faith, if not, c'est la vie.

Don't forget that copyrights laws do not exist in Communist countries. They do - most countries have them - but in real terms the application of them in Russia and China tends to be variable. Normally the only time theres a showcase crack down is before big trade talks. Also don't forget Iranian and Iraq. Their "art" sites are seriously screwed up, often covered in banners attacking US lifestyle, but offering an illegal download of the lastest V4 genitial morph pack! ACTA was rejected by the EU until now. The aceptance of ACTA would mean that the copyright laws in the EU would be exactly the US laws and this was rejected by the European population. Nope. Rejected by the EU government not the people :) IPoser is illegal in Saudi Arabia. Really? Thats interesting. Where did you read that?

Quote - ACTA was rejected by the EU until now. The aceptance of ACTA would mean that the copyright laws in the EU would be exactly the US laws and this was rejected by the European population.

Nope. Rejected by the EU government not the people :)

Wrong!!!, Were just the people with their mass protests and mobilizations  in many countries that forced their goverments to shelf ACTA, corrupted greedy politicians wanted it, but population does not.

Quote - ACTA was rejected by the EU until now. The aceptance of ACTA would mean that the copyright laws in the EU would be exactly the US laws and this was rejected by the European population.

Nope. Rejected by the EU government not the people :)

Actually the EU still is Democratic so the Folk decide as the govenment fallows them , People are govenment, compaired to the US in witch the People do as the Govenment say's. ( Sheep Folk ) 

A good example is the ACTA issue witch almost caused a Civil war in the US. and government beating the crap out of innocent civillians just because they stud for there own thoughts.

Quote - IPoser is illegal in Saudi Arabia.
Really? Thats interesting. Where did you read that?

  this is common Logic ... as those from the mentioned caunties can not get the merchandise in a legal way , and it would be a crime to sell a product onto a cauntry witch prohibits the usage Stores in most cases do not offer a product sale to those.

the people there also to protect them selves form a govenment check on there spendings are forced to go to the Dark side to get the whanted merchandise.

but this actually concerns the trading contracts between caunties.

each product has to be adapted to the cautries Law in witch it has been exported and there is no exuse of unknoweledge ( Export Laws)

Now if for example Kidds4 would be declared as a Pedophile Product throughout different cauntries in Europ DAZ would comit a Crime providing this figure to those Cautries. ( Ignorance is Bliss .. but not an excuse )

As for V4 WM how many people who whanted this to get true figured a way of Borrowing this from the Copyrightholder without hes full permission and it has been sucessfully done without allot of concequences. If it concerns a personal Product by the copyrightholder he mostly Barks out Loud but only to represent hes own thought of right.

Another example : One produces an Iron GYM puts it out on the Market on a 100$ as soon as he makes allot of sales others will fallow by copiing the Idea and they are allowed to do as sutch the form will varrie a little and especially the name or Brand , witch is the actuall copyright so those cant use the Name Iron Gym but will name the Product Pullup Gym and sell the Product to a lower Price.

Now the consumer , he will see the flood of the cheeper copy but still think well the originall might be better quality. if affordable still by the originall Product.

the Inventor does not bother about the Issue as they do not stand still fixing them selves on an old Idea rather use there energy for there next revolutionary Idea.

If ,as a sample, a great creator Like Aery Soul , and later on somone pops up  and makes the same style copying the idea people will still whant the Aery Soul Product as they are the Originall. or Steam Punk how manny Vendors fallowes the Idea as they smelled Big Monney. But who is the actuall copyrightholder of the Brand " Steam Punk " ???

Quote - > Quote - But that's all that needed to be said kawecki. Just number 8. The rest rest don't matter for the OP.

Laurie

 

Actually Laury it is not only Nummber 8 as the redestributor witch exports products has to fallow the terms in witch cauntry he exports not the ones witch are valid in he's own. Accepting there terms the moment you sold the product to those.

so you have to be avare to whom you sell the product as you agree to there terms of usage as soon as you sold it to them. 

 

You know, I would think with a site like this (based in the US, compelled to follow US law) that if you are in another country you are bound by your own county's laws and that is on YOU. This site can't likely follow every law of every country on these matters...that would be ridiculous. It's then on the purchaser to know what or what not they can do with it. All this site can tell you is what you can't do with it in the US.

Laurie

@ Laurie ,

I sure inderstand the Fact , But why does then the one who sets up the rooles not fallow them them selve, by breaking there own rooles of termes , well there would be a simple answer for this.

There are just to many Rooles witch actually affect the creativity or ability to produce new stuff, all what those rooles say combining one article with another means , you can not do anything anymore without braking a Law , So we All are sort of Law breakers. cheating on our own Terms.

a simple concept of Power to be able to controll the mass. as I said before in your cauntry it would be against the law to use a brand , a signature of any kind  and to make any profit out of it " Steam Punk " would in this case be recognized as a Brand in witch those who pretend how severe copiright might be broke it them selves by abusing the opportunity gaining some monney out of it ( And no Credit has ever been given to the originall Brand Holder ) . we could see in here that every day there is approval of breaking our own rooles, so why prohipit something to one and allow it to another ??

I can't change the laws gate..lol. And neither can Renderosity. It's out of their hands. And I don't think anyone is trying to control the masses . Renderosity puts stuff they see fit in their store. If they believe something isn't going to be a copyright violation, they put it in the store. Sometimes they're wrong and they get bitten. Sometimes it's the vendor that's wrong. They do their best to make sure stuff like that doesn't happen and they actually do have people that know copyright laws. Even then stuff slips thru. It's a fallible system because it's run by humans...lol

Laurie

Steampunk is a genre - there is no copyright involved. It was mentioned first as the opposite of cyberpunk. Numerous books, films and fashion items have been made in this genre - even before the term was used

@ wimvdb

actually I just used Steam Punk as a simple sample , there are other samples witch could be recognized as copyright infrigement but noo need to mention as I also enjoy the beauty of the Graphics in here, even if i'd be slightly on the limmit of copyright.

@ All, as it seems we are all in agreement so @ Ragtopjohnny I would just use the tatoofragments you wish to use ( Best use Black and white and paint them :-)  .... witch I assume it already has been done Example shana Inked Vol1-8 in withch there is also no statement where the originall tatoo's came from and some seem to be verry popular common tattoo's.

there are also tatoocollection to be bought througout the Internet as reference for ones you wish to have on your skin, many are also Provided for free. Legal Usage ,there are also cheep Tatoomagazines witch provide also references to be used as soutch.

so no matter if you use this tatoo on a dool skinn on a t-shirt or on your skin they are free to be used. they are made for this Purpose, and not under Rendo or Daz Grafic  eula's

Mostly the references are Provided in Black and white some colored so that the user can color then on he's own taste.

to compair to a child's paintbook with BW references to be colored :-) 

Ugh. Whatever. Simple...US site, US laws. Period. No using anyone elses artwork without specific premission period.

Bye.

Laurie

Quote - Ugh. Whatever. Simple...US site, US laws. Period. No using anyone elses artwork without specific premission period.
Bye. Laurie

Well I guess everyone understud that :

Translation of  Simple...US site, US laws. ---->> No Matter how you might do it be aware that it could be used against you and be procecuted by Law ( Police State ) as everything can be Pretended as  Illegal act depending on the interpretation of  facts.

See ---->> Rhetoric

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric 

Wrong!!!, Were just the people with their mass protests and mobilizations in many countries Maybe in Libya and Egypt, but not in europe. All the occupy protest achieved there was a big flat nothing. The rest of us just carried on trying to survive like normal, and for some of us copyright issues - the point of this debate - are a big part of that. Copyright helps protects the stuff content creators make, which in turn means they get an income. Equally do I think current copyright laws are often wrong and need changing to reflect the digital age? Yep.Plus do I think sites get it wrong sometimes? Yep all the time and there are loads of grey areas. BTW - as it seems we are all in agreement so @ Ragtopjohnny I would just use the tatoofragments you wish to use No we ain't. If you want to tell people it's OK to be a thief, it's your right to have that opinion. But would you promise us that if we used stolen work you'd cover us? You'd pay any fees or damages? PS = well said Laurie.

Quote - > Quote - Ugh. Whatever. Simple...US site, US laws. Period. No using anyone elses artwork without specific premission period.

Bye. Laurie

Well I guess everyone understud that :

Translation of  Simple...US site, US laws. ---->> No Matter how you might do it be aware that it could be used against you and be procecuted by Law ( Police State ) as everything can be Pretended as  Illegal act depending on the interpretation of  facts.

See ---->> Rhetoric

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric 

 

 

OFFSIDE! Ref! that's politics! I call foul under Forum Policies! plus man.. use a spellchecker... (in Firefox, right click, spell check.)

Quote - No we ain't. If you want to tell people it's OK to be a thief, it's your right to have that opinion. But would you promise us that if we used stolen work you'd cover us? You'd pay any fees or damages?

 PS = well said Laurie.

To avoid any missunderstandings what I wrote was not supporting any Piracy or any theft , rather to prevent it and also to make it understandable the use of references Like the ones for Tatoos

I do not know where you are have been  hanging arround to get the impression of theft but were not on the Dark side here.  assuming that "inked" was made based on References for Tatoo's why the heck could another one not do the same , just because Ragtopjohnny is sencere by asking ( And getting missleaded anwers ) and the other one never has to mention the facts ??

Or is it because there is a little good complex on those who are the Older creatores preventing newbies to get a chance for there creations?

Home 5, Visitors 0

Laurie

Quote - OFFSIDE! Ref! that's politics! I call foul under Forum Policies! plus man.. use a spellchecker... (in Firefox, right click, spell check.)

  OFFSIDE theme

this is exactly what I mean , do you think because you spell better in your Mother Language that your IQ might be higher? well no rather a primitive answer of somone who cannot argue pretending he might know better , but I assume you could read what I wrote even that it contains some spelling mistakes :-)

and sure would not be a reason to be able to scare off any arguments

we are no rasits are we , what will be next ... the Avatar that Ragtopjohnny used he might of made more impression by using an Avatar from the Rock to get a little more respect from you guy's ( And may even of gotten a Positive approval for he's dream )

I don't think he was talking about spelling mistakes. The TOS is against political discussion. This isn't - it's copyright law. US copyright law. Starting to offer "opinions" on what is totalitarian or what's not is really straying toward political. That's what he meant.

btw, are you kawecki? ;)

Laurie

Helllooo wake up .... I am GATE and alway's was and no I'm not charl's bronson or Jack Nikolson, well rather a resemblance with Bill Gates Let me check the Mirror ...............

and again to clear your little confusion I never used the word Political that was MagnusGreel witch whent into the Wiki Page but as for there is allot to read hes brain could only register the line of the 20th century where the word Political was mentioned

 the phylosophical of the page was not unhderstandable. and phylosophy has actually nothing to do with polotex.

and who is actually trying to misslead the actual theme ... not me we are still debating if it is Possible to use a Tatoo reference for a Texturing !!!! 

To avoid any missunderstandings what I wrote was not supporting any Piracy or any theft Good to read. I do not know where you are have been hanging arround to get the impression of theft The part where I watch my friends, fellow artists and customers get screwed by sharers and theives on a regular basis. Which after 12 years gets incredibly tiring. Especially when others try to justify that. iOr is it because there is a little good complex on those who are the Older creatores preventing newbies to get a chance for there creations? Never. Newbies are vital in bringing new ideas and concepts into poserdom. So helping them also helps inspire us oldies. You can also post a complex question here and get an accurate answer in seconds. Often from the very people who wrote that for the core software and content. Plus just because someone is a newbie in one area, doesn't mean they are in another. Everyone has skills to bring. Indeed it's that shared knowledge that one's of this community biggest strengths. OK, its a community that doesn't always agree :) but good debate can be a healthly thing.

I guess that Ragtopjohnny would get the best advices contacting a Vendor Like " Shana " who seems to have allot of texturing experiences and Legal Knowelage using Tatoo References on Clothings and skin as allot of her Products refere to that.( Might be worth a try ) and more then to Read our Debatings as Newbies on this theme.

@ LaurieA

thinking that I might be another Person  would give me the impression that you reflect what you actually are doing, thinking that I might do the same, but wrong! as we are Individuals and there is no coperable characteristics between us.

I guess that Ragtopjohnny would get the best advices... Yep it can he helpful to ask those with experience, though don't automatically rule out whats said on these boards. Theres a lot of good people here, with some expert knowledge and skills, who are willing to spend their time helping others. ..and more then to Read our Debatings as Newbies on this theme. Think your're speaking for yourself there not anyone else:) LOL.

Sorry gate...a lot of us have been around the block a few times. Watch vendor after vendor's product blow up because they cheated and used someone elses work without permission. I've been here at RO since it wasn't even RO but Poser Forum Online. I've seen just about everything as have a lot of us, including Mr. Sparky. Ask an old timer about Mendhi, Renda, ByteMeOk, as well as many others.

Laurie

Well I'd just like to know how many of the members who have responded here are copyrite attorneys?  On what authority or fact are the answers based upon?  I'd love to see some text or links directing the OP to these rules.  Far as I can tell, the only person making any "reasonable" sense is Gate.  Granted his spelling sux (yes I spelled "sux" wrong... I did it on purpose), but you can OBVIOUSLY tell that English is not his primary langauge.  So rather than make his spelling an issue, just stay focussed on the question at hand.  If a person isn't able to use their brain to debate or, at the very least, display a small measure of tolerance, then they ought to just keep their mouth shut.    

The advice that Ragtopjohnny got from the Art Room Tattoo Galary appears to be sound.  However, to be safe, he could contact the copyrite holder and request permission to use their designs for commercial digital models, get it in writing and provide that to Renderosity for them to "keep on file," just as ShanaC does.

Seems some of the answers to this simple question were made much more complicated than was necessary.

That's all we were TRYING to tell him. Don't use without permission. Make sure you're asking the original creator of the artwork you want to use. Get it in writing. That's it.

Laurie

Well if you post such a question on a publicy accessible forum do you expect only lawyers to answer? Of course not. You're also going to get different answers from a global persceptive based on different experiences and people will freely debate it. Which is whats happening here and theres nothing wrong with good fair debate. As for the advice that's gonna be given. If it's obviously wrong - like the tat guys - then other artists will want to warn the OP. Purely because they don't want the OP to get into any trouble. So yes you're right anyone doing this should get permission from the IP or copyright holder.

I'm going to find a wall I can bang my head against. :)

Quote - I'm going to find a wall I can bang my head against. :)

Bang it a few times for me ;).

Laurie

Gate, under US law, you cannot copyright ideas.

Intellectual property can be protected under patents, trademarks, and copyrights. None of these protects pure ideas.  The laws governing each are somewhat different, as are the laws governing publicity rights, use of one's image (photograph of a person, for example), defamation, and privacy.

I would quote you to show you where you are conflating these things, but I find your writing, while articulate and sensible, also hard to read, and I do wish you would consider using a spellchecker because it would make communicating your point much easier.

I also think that while it is one thing to discuss the ethical merits of a position, it is another to give someone bad legal advice.  I do not think any of us should feel good about giving Ragtopjohnny advice that might result in action being brought against him.

But in the end, when it comes to legal advice, it's worth every penny you paid for it.

Another approach hat is very common in real life:

You must obey and follow the law, the US law tells that you cannot take the work of other person, if you do you will be punished.

Fine, I shall follow the law and take the work of many people and obtain a huge profit with its use. Following the law the offended parts will sue me at a Justice court. With whom does not I shall get an extra profit and who does it then will be lawyers, discussions, more lawyers, appealtions and can take many years to reach the final veredict. I can win or lose the cause. If I win the cause I get an extra profit. If I lose, then I have to stop using the works, no problem, the product is already obsolette. Also I have to pay, also no problem, what I have to pay in lost causes already is a part of the product's cost. I am only following the law and obeying the decisions of Justice.

Microsoft won and lost hundreds or thousands of causes. Do you think that was Billy Gates that payed the lost causes? Nooo!, it was you that payed it every time you purchased Windows. The bailouts that the banks have received, a significative part of the money was used to pay the lost cause. Again, it were  taxpayers and not the banks that payed the lost causes.

Don't blame the lawyers, they don't twist, change or invent the Laws, they only brownse among the tons and more tons of existent laws to find the most appropiate for the case. But judges have some power to interpret the law, but they can be bribed and can be good friends or political allies.

Well, I suppose that nobody will make a fortune with a Vicky5 skin tatoo, so forget all above.

Quote -
Well, I suppose that nobody will make a fortune with a Vicky5 skin tatoo, so forget all above.

Exactly.

Using the courts to challenge a law is a tradition, and a respectable tactic.  Including the cost of legal action in the cost of production is reasonable from a business standpoint, but immoral in my opinion when it comes to matters of health and safety, as when pharmaceutical companies continue to sell dangerous drugs with the knowledge that their profits will still probably exceed their losses even if they lose a very large class action lawsuit.

Aggressive businesses have been known to infringe unregistered works, knowing perfectly well that their legal budget will permit them to bully an individual into giving up because that person cannot sue for statutory damages or legal costs -- which is why, even though copyright registration is not theoretically or legally required, in practical application, if you want to be able to sue, you will almost certainly need it.

In short, if it will break your heart to see your stuff infringed, register it and retain a lawyer.

Quote - Well if you post such a question on a publicy accessible forum do you expect only lawyers to answer? Of course not. Good point, agreed.  It's just reading through all the responses gave me the impression that everyone was an authority without pointing the OP to the rules. 

You're also going to get different answers from a global persceptive based on different experiences and people will freely debate it. Which is whats happening here and theres nothing wrong with good fair debate. As for the advice that's gonna be given.

I completely agree with you. 

If it's obviously wrong - like the tat guys - then other artists will want to warn the OP. Purely because they don't want the OP to get into any trouble. So yes you're right anyone doing this should get permission from the IP or copyright holder.

I'm not sure the tat guy is completely wrong, but unless I knew for sure, I would definitely get it in writing, for my own peace of mind. 

Quote - I'm not sure the tat guy is completely wrong, but unless I knew for sure, I would definitely get it in writing, for my own peace of mind. 

Whether he's completely wrong depends on the question that was posed to him.

"Will I get in trouble if I use art I downloaded from the web?" -- Very likely not -- agree with tat guy.

"Can I use copyrighted works in my products sold on Renderosity without getting permission from copyright holders?" -- Absolutely not -- disagree with tat guy. Tat guy probably doesn't know what Renderosity is or anything about its policies.

"Will I get sued if I infringe on someone else's copyright in commericial works?" -- Will my house in California suffer earthquake damage? Who the hell knows?  The question is how much risk you are willing and able to assume.

"If I take an image off the web and ink it on someone's arm, am I likely to get in trouble?" -- Probably not, but every reputable tattoo artist I have visited pays for subscriptions to tattoo flash sites, and I AM NOT going to allow anyone who disrespects copyright law to stick needles in my skin because I am going to wonder what other laws and regulations do they think they can just disregard?

Good comment there moriador - what you're talking about is the context of useage and that does change things for the OP's question. While in all your examples the act of taking is legally wrong, it's what's likely to happen that'll vary. For the former, certainly nothing at all. For the latter where design theft is a big issue, I wouldn't steal from someone who sticks needles in people for a living :) For the issue of selling content it's not just about store polices either, another biggie is how an artists work is gonna be percived. It raises Q's such as would you buy from an artist if you thought their stuff was likely to be iffy? If so could you respect their work? Or trust that artist? Obviously with the OP you can trust him as he knows the score now. Though yea Jazzmin I wouldn't take the word of some random tat guy on the web either, I'd go see a lawyer.

Attached Link: http://forum.deviantart.com/art/general/1747964/

Even if you pay for a subscription at what looks like a reputable site, you might still be using material that was infringed.  I suppose your liability would be limited in that case, and the site itself would take the heat (if any).

I guess you have to do your homework there and email the site you're thinking of subscribing to, ask them about their removal policy, and see how long it takes for them to respond to you.

 A Side Question ....

The Past Day's I whent through Hundred's of collected things, From different Artist's , I Figured that most Products sold where unfinished full of mistakes , Path Mistakes Missing Textures Axis on the Wrong Place for rotation Rigging has to be fixed Morphs Named wrong not being recognized, allot of Products with Missing IK Chains , Products created Between 2002 - 2005 where having less issues but the ones from the Past year where Full of them  1 of 20 where ok 19 need fixes ,

Now How would that be .... If somond desides to Sell Fixes for these Incompleate Products or Improvements , How would that be , the One sells right after buying a New Product a fix or an addon witch has more Possibilities based for example on a CR2 but does not Redestribute the OBJ exept the OBJ would have to be also Fixed and would code the Product that could only be opend owning the Originall, well a sample how all the creators in here Already do to Improve V4.

The one who makes the fix would automaticly get Copyright on he's fix ... Right? 

The Originall Creator would be Blocked to make the same Fix him self on he's own Product ... I assume !!!

I realized this the Past days well the Quality loss in the Past Year witch made me think ... are the Creator only selling Dreams With there promos but actually not a quality Product ??

So actually it would be aproffitable for the Consumer to have the possibility having a  Let's call it a Dream Fixer for Unfinished sold Products.

As a simple sample , take a Robo Figure witch has no IK Chain then Add the IK Chain to the Figure and sell the CR2 In the store as an addon Or Figure Improvement the The originall creator could not add the IK Chains on Hes originall Product as an Improvement as for the one who made the Update was first !!

Or redestribute Fixed Files of wrong Path's in Cr2 Or Poses without adding the OBJ's in the Package or Texture files the one who redestributes the fix has the copyright on it . 

 I assume this is correct or tell me better if I am Wrong.