it would be wrong - a derivative product.  the person attempting to sell it could try the transformative defence, as they do with photomanips, but most of these big poser-related stores would either refuse to sell it or they would yank it after due legal process.  I ain't a lawyer.

Like Nancy said, thats whats called a Derivative Work. Very long complex copyright issue there. Wikipedia explains it well. Though I'm more interested in your comments that content creators are making poor quality products and that you can fix them up. So I'm offering you a fun and friendly challenge here.. http://www.poserdirect.com/freebies/zimbeta.zip http://www.poserdirect.com/freebies/new_gir.zip The above files contain the kinda uncompleted thing you mention. 2 fan art freebies, plain unrigged OBJ's. Orginally made in response to a request at Daz, but sadly Wendy never had time to finish them off. So reckon you can rig these two perfectly for Poser? There'll be no financial reward, but you would make a lot of poser people very happy!

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

No.  Someone please correct me if I am mistaken anywhere in the following.... Laws are not the same everywhere. I'm not an expert in US law.  But this is how I understand it:

The original creator could fix his product however he wanted as long as he didn't use the same exact fix (or parts of that fix) that someone else made.

You cannot copyright, or patent the IDEA of a fix, only its exact implementation or expresssion.  And that implementation or expression must involve some degree of creativity.

Two people are not going to arrive at an identical "fix" or morph or figure or texture independently (without one of them copying from the other) unless their creation is very simple.  As long as their creations are different and did not involve copying from each other, they are both perfectly free to create them, use them, or sell them.

For example, I make a red "texture set" for a dress by making the diffuse color red. Now no one can use this extremely simple method for making materials red? Of course not.  It's too simple. It's not a creation.  There must be something creative in what I do before I can copyright it.

I have this story about a pirate called Jack and his rivalry with another pirate who has an evil monkey and a magical compass.  I know, I'll copyright it!! I'll also copyright this clever concept I came up with for preventing injury when slicing bagels.  And finally, I'll copyright my name.  No one will be able to write a book or have a character in a movie called "Amber Fisher" because I'm going to take that name.

No. It does not work like that.

With a tangible working design drawn in paper or 3d that is detailed enough that someone could create a functional version of the item pictured, I might patent my bagel slicer. 

I might be able to trademark "Amber Fisher", though I'll be severely limited, and my trademark will probably only protect me against others who use that name in the same industry, in the same geographical area, for products or services that could be mistaken for my own. 

Finally, if I'm Disney, I might manage to trademark the special appearance of the pirate characters as they will appear in my movies, and I can copyright the movies and the movie scripts themselves, but in all likelihood the basic story will continue to belong to humanity.

ETA: So yes. The first person to come up with a reasonably complex solution gets to own it -- if they patent it.  It's how we reward crazy inventors when they create something good after years of making useless junk.  I could patent my bagel slicer.  But that wouldn't stop anyone from making a hundred different kinds of bagel slicers, just as long as none of them were THE SAME as mine.

Quote - it would be wrong - a derivative product.  the person attempting to sell it could try the transformative defence, as they do with photomanips, but most of these big poser-related stores would either refuse to sell it or they would yank it after due legal process.  I ain't a lawyer.

What MissNancy said.

Laurie

Well selling a Unfinished Product Is also wrong or Providing a Product to be used to Improve your creations that cant be Improved further Is also wrong , Improving V4 Is also Wrong , Especially Writing rooles for own Benefits is terribly Wrong.

I Take a sample . I buy a Static Building , But Ooohh The door does not open, but that door should open as it is needed for my clip , ain't it soo tha the Product is sold to be used in clips ? But it does not work , so why not being able to sell that Imprvement to the Building ? you also sell Clothings with Bones from V4 Or Modefied Morphs that already have ben sold Jus Mixed and modefied Saved as a OBJ Morph and added as your costum morph on a new doll!!

Or IK Chains that are Missing A must have for any Figure with Legs especially if it would be a Spider But they are missing , so why could it not be fixed and sold as an addon to emprove that missing feature ?? you do this all the Time with other figures especially with V4.

I rather think that the the issue would be that a costumer would recognize that the sold Product was not what they expected it to be, or is it on the Costumer to fix it them self for he's own use witch would again be against the roole.

Another sample You Buy one of those Newer Space Crafts from Simon Mostly static But you need Movements for your anmations so why not being able to make packages witch Improve the feature of new Morphs New movements as a Improved CR2 Without redestributing the textures or Obj's ( And actually this metod has been used for years on the Victoria series for diverse Dolls  on redestributing the CR2 with integrated Morphs. ) I can also see that many morphs for example Pucker Lips on dolls have been used many times in the Past as Costum morph but reley on already sold Packages just a combination of morph's saved as a new costum morph and sold as its own ! and for sure not made in a third-party programm or by using Paint Morph. .

Yanno, we were really not discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of any product in the MP. Only what you can and can't use in it.

Laurie

As I Said .. Was only a side Question to be able to understand those confusing rooles , about one that can another one not and on what the rooles are actually Based :-)

Why don't you create a new thread?

Laurie

Theres nothing confusing about it. If you buy something and it's not precisely what you want, then modding it for yourself is fine. But if you wanna profit from it, either finacially or "creatively", it's what moriador said about Derivative Works.

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

Ha, ha, ha. Many years ago I found the most ridiculous thing that I've seen. I was working analyzing patents to see if some have any use for the company and I found one. This patent was nothing more that a patent fixing the crap of other patent!! So if you want to use this patent for your product you must pay for two patents. You pay for the first patent to make your product, but this product will not work, so you must pay another patent to make your product work. I put in my report "Ridiculous"

Quote - I Take a sample . I buy a Static Building , But Ooohh The door does not open, but that door should open as it is needed for my clip , ain't it soo tha the Product is sold to be used in clips ? But it does not work , so why not being able to sell that Imprvement to the Building ?

Is not so simple. You build a room for a scenario and you can put many doors and windows. The doors and windows are not doors of windows, it are only a plane with a door or window texture and there are plenty of beautil textures of doors and windows, so the rendering of the scene will be something excellent. The second point is that the walls are only planes, so if the set the backcull option in the rendering settings, the walls will not obstruct the camera. In the end you have a room that a low polygon number, render fast and produce excellent scenes.

But the doors are fake doors that never open. If you want a door to open the situation gets rather complicated. The door cannot be a simple pece of plane with a proyected texture, it must have 3d, The door itself is not a big problem, you can use a cube instead of a plane and continue to use the same texture. The problem is that the door needs a frame that cannot be a plane and so the walls that once were a plane, now have 3d. The problem doesn't end here. If you open the door there is nothing on the other side. The floor abruply ends at the door and with a void after the door. You need to extend the floor of your room to the other side of the door with a same texture or other compatible with the first. You solved the floor problem, but what you see on the other side is a void, you must put something there. What do you put at the other side of the door? another room with walls? a garden ? a street ?

In the end, you will have to build a complex building divided into props or figure actors that can be hidden/unhidden, a big polygon count and very much expensive product. There is no possible update for the first simple product to make the door open. If you want a moving door, buy a more complicated product or divide the animation into parts where each part uses simple products and then join the parts editing the trasition between the scenarios

Most static Buildings are made in High end Programms , some things we see even have been ripped out of Games. But verry difficult to prove as it is mostly only a fragment of those. The OBJ actually is importet into Poser  and reasamled as one static Prop the information of doorframes Doors windows are actually still here , just that the creator instead of importing the OBJ subdivided and reasembled in Poser he merged them into one , It can actually be taken appart in the Material room of poser by saving the materials as Props. And would not be a distingtive work just a Update as Long as the originall product is required to be able to use the Update. It is actually the Major Part of Poser to do so most Products are So called Distinctive works. In the store there is one addon after the other to find one update after an other Just like working as a team On a huuge Project. Restricting these Posibilities would most Likely cause that new great Creators could not integrate ino such a community. We stand still .

It Probably also would Prevent,  Like mentioned by MrSparky Fighting the dark side , rather pushing ( Motivating )the  People to create  then to steal by showing more felibility. and hes just released Product on Content Paradise would of not shown up on a search  right after its release. ( Just a side Joke )

We are Talking here about Legal issues but they result rather into Restriction then to be Productive for an Artist community.( Cant use this Cant Use that ) One allone could of never made Poser the way it is today it has been build hand in hand by many People with many great ideas , and now it seems more and more restricting compairing to the flexibility shown almost a decade ago.

The day every Idea will have been brought out, there will be nothing left to create, rather then to steal other Ideas and resulting, caused by own limitations that people start pointing fingers at each other . 

every healthy management thinks in Decades but not just only in the Present. 

You know, Renderosity did not make the US laws and of course the thing to do if you don't LIKE US law is to sell within your country of origin or in other countries where you know the laws are very lax on other peoples intellectual property. In essence, don't bitch about not being able to sell here - this place HAS to follow US law whether they like it or not. And THAT my friends is a fact, whether YOU like it or not. Your options? See above and don't sell in the US. It's really very simple. Your long whining posts are going to change absolutely nothing, so I suggest you use that energy for your own benefit and start creating things for your own countries and not sell here, where the laws protect the things people make, even YOUR stuff.

Laurie

Quote - The day every Idea will have been brought out, there will be nothing left to create, rather then to steal other Ideas and resulting, caused by own limitations that people start pointing fingers at each other .

Once again, I don't know how it is in your country, but in the US and Canada, you can't own the rights to an IDEA, and as a result, while you can plagiarize an idea (and lose your reputation), you can't steal one because they aren't legally owned.

And they aren't legally owned for exactly the reasons you point out because everyone, even the lawyers who help draft the legislation, knows how utterly absurd it would become.

you Know Laurie , I really Like your Attitude , and for us there is no need to Have a shop in Renderosity as Our work is a little more advanced then to sell Virtual Dreams and Uptates based on one  existing Products  ,  our work is rather to Push Economy than to Block it. It is rather Using ideas and sharing them In sociaty giving the next generation Posibilities to build up something.

If you would be capable of reading and understanding this thread witch does nothing else then to figure out solutions for others to be able to take part in an artistic way. Not only restricting those. 

The mentality ( Whether you Like the Us and accept it fallow there Rooles or just keep out ) is not  verry Productive  for International merchandise tradings. 

Gate, your country is in all likelihood a signatory to the Berne Convention, and therefore I doubt that the laws there are really all that different.

If anything it may be easier in your country to sue for damages when your IP is copied, as the US almost did not sign the agreement because it did not want to eliminate the requirement for copyright registration.  As it stands, in the US, you need to register a work before you can sue.  This is not the case in all Berne Convention countries.

So before you criticize the other contestants, please make sure that your own horse can finish the race.

Quote -  

you Know Laurie , I really Like your Attitude , and for us there is no need to Have a shop in Renderosity as Our work is a little more advanced then to sell Virtual Dreams and Uptates based on one  existing Products  ,  our work is rather to Push Economy than to Block it. It is rather Using ideas and sharing them In sociaty giving the next generation Posibilities to build up something.

If you would be capable of reading and understanding this thread witch does nothing else then to figure out solutions for others to be able to take part in an artistic way. Not only restricting those. 

The mentality ( Whether you Like the Us and accept it fallow there Rooles or just keep out ) is not  verry Productive  for International merchandise tradings. 

 

Perhaps it's the language barrier then. It doesn't sound like you are trying to come up with anything but to rant on about why we can't use other's things, staunch creativity, etc. I haven't really seen you come up with anything. What is it I'm supposed to be seeing? And if you aren't talking about the original question of the thread what are you talking about? If you wanna talk about something else, fine. MAKE A NEW THREAD. There are people that search these forums for the question that was originally asked.

Laurie

"As it stands, in the US, you need to register a work before you can sue."

My understanding is a little different.  You can sue in either case, it is what you can sue for that is different.

If it is registered, you can sue for damages.  If it is not registered, you can only sue to stop distribution/publication/sales of existing copies, but no monitary damages.

Again, complicated law, so I may be wrong on that one.

Bill

This Discussion is not only based on am I allowed to do or not , I see it rather like this, are there alternatives ( More flexipilities ) rather then always pointing fingers saying it is a destingtive work or it is a Pic that already has been seen somwhere but still differs from one another.

If the Law As you said repeating what I said earlier. ""As it stands, in the US, you need to register a work before you can sue. "" then how many have been registred ?

If somone Like in the store creates a Doll using Combined morphs from other pakages creating hes own Distingtive Costum Morph with exeption of ones Provided By Daz, why is that allowed ? ( Is it cos it cant be proven ? ) but used in a daily base.

and it is not the govenment or a Berne convention who makes the Law , we are the ones who restrict our selves we make the laws a eula just repeats what we decide . if we recognize that there would be the need for more flexibility we just change them for our own benefits. so it is on the Artists to decide whether it is possible or not .

Would I whant to make a Product more attractive I would write .

Small Sample: Do not redestribute the product in its originall state , you may modefie the product at own will and redestribute as long it does not match the originall ! 

so to say make it more plesant for a costumer to use by showing flexibilitie. we are in a economic circle that has allot of issues so why not try to find ideas to fix them starting with little things.  

Quote - "As it stands, in the US, you need to register a work before you can sue."

My understanding is a little different.  You can sue in either case, it is what you can sue for that is different.

If it is registered, you can sue for damages.  If it is not registered, you can only sue to stop distribution/publication/sales of existing copies, but no monitary damages.

Again, complicated law, so I may be wrong on that one.

 

Bill

 

Well, theoretically you can sue (for actual loss of profits -- which would be very hard to prove) without registering, but the courts have ruled that before you can bring a lawsuit into federal court (and that's the only court that has jurisdiction), you must register your work.  It's a procedural requirement.

Now, you can register after you've noticed the infringement, but you must do so within 3 months of the first date of publication, or when the infringement occurred (or maybe when you noticed it -- I'm not sure).  Given that it often takes 6 months to complete an application unless you pay $600+ to fast track it (and apparently that may still be cutting it very close), it's almost as though you have no actual protection without registering.

I think that if you don't register before you notice infringement, you lose one of the other main benefits of registering, and that is that it provides prima facie evidence of your ownership of the copyright.

I'm imagining someone stealing someone's unregistered work and registering it under their own name and then suing the actual creator for infringement.  It would not surprise me to find that it had happened.

ETA: There is a reason I don't have a gallery here.  It could conceivably be considered "publication" and that makes registering a whole bunch of images all together a real PITA.  Once I've registered them, I'll feel okay about posting.

Correct. You can sue for infringement even if you don't have it registered/copyrighted/whatever. It's just that your burden of proof is higher than it would be had you done it previous to the infraction.

Laurie

Attached Link: http://www.wsgr.com/WSGR/Display.aspx?SectionName=publications/PDFSearch/wsgralert_copyright_registration.htm

From the link above:

"Section 411(a) [of the The Copyright Act] provides, with a few exceptions, that "no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title."

In Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, No. 08-103, 559 U.S. ___ (2010) the Supreme Court ruled on the issue...

"It should be noted that while the Court confirmed that Section 411(a)'s registration requirement is a precondition to filing a claim, the Court expressly declined to clarify what kind of precondition to the suit it is—namely, whether it is a mandatory precondition. Hence, it remains to be determined whether district courts may or should enforce the registration requirement sua sponte by dismissing copyright infringement claims involving unregistered works. It also remains to be seen how the Second Circuit will address the matter upon remand in the class action context."

TL;DR ---> You need to register as a precondition to filing a claim, but that could change with future rulings.

Oh, and this requirement does not hold, I believe, for international works when the infringement occurs in the US.  It seems that I would find it easier to sue an American infringer than an someone whose work was created in the US would.

Quote - and it is not the govenment or a Berne convention who makes the Law , we are the ones who restrict our selves we make the laws a eula just repeats what we decide . if we recognize that there would be the need for more flexibility we just change them for our own benefits. so it is on the Artists to decide whether it is possible or not .

I live a block from the courthouse, and I guarantee that it is not run by a bunch of artists making up their own rules.

Creators DO have the ability to decide the rules about how their own work will be used. I agree totally.  I render stock images and make stock photos available, and I offer them exactly as you suggest.  I'm also a big fan of Creative Commons music, and I prefer a lot of it to what is offered by traditional recording studios.

But for the original purposes of this discussion, the OP wants to sell products in this marketplace. And this marketplace has very conservative rules because, like most businesses, it does not want to spend a cent more than necessary on legal hassles, so it is not going to go out of the way to protect a vendor who may very well be using a work under "fair use" rules.  It will take the easy way and safe way because that's good business.  Any vendor who doesn't like that is, of course, free to set up their own site and sell from there. There's no legal or philosophical restriction.  Please don't mistake Renderosity marketplace practices for actual law.  It's just good practice if you want to be very safe.

good work moriador , could not of done better "Bravo" !!!

In your face for the rest LOL

Quote - good work moriador , could not of done better "Bravo" !!!

In your face for the rest LOL

Good for you. Feel free to swipe what you wish

I can only tell you that Renderosity will not accept it without written permission from the creator.

Laurie

Gate in the interests of Peace, have some of Lauries Special Brownies. have a few and sit and enjoy them...

Hint: no illegal drugs are allowed in the making of my brownies

Laurie

Gate. No offence here, but as I read your posts it sounds like you're looking for reasons to justify taking existing content, "improving" it and calling it yours. Which is akin to the OP's question about useage of 'found' content. In either case it's something that most stores won't accept. Nor will most artists, no matter what excuses are given. Also according to your posts so far, you say most poser products are poorly made and you can fix them. I've provided you with a fun and friendy challenge to show you can. Yet you remain silent. So can you actually do this or is that claim just hot forum air? Laurie - chuck me a illegaly baked cookie :) LOL

Quote - Laurie - chuck me a illegaly baked cookie :) LOL

You may not want one after you find out what's in it!

Oops! Did I say laxatives?

Laurie

Now that wasn't the natural small brown lumps I was thinking of :) LOL

Well MR Sparky I Whant to see you rigg a figure that is composed of Props sticked together and not a single mesh !! It is not a challange the provided modell is rather a joke , it is as if you would take different props set em together with penetrating parts then bone such a figure.

As I said I do not have any Intention to be Part of the Store In here , to make you understand , it is to be able to understand why do in here some make updates Or Improvements  based on Dirivitive works ( Morphs combined then saved as costum for example ) or and allot of Emprovements on Figures Some can be done some not but on the eula and based on your Meanings actually none of these should be approved , is it in here that each just puts rooles based on hes momentary mood.

If you would of read correctly the question was if somone could make Improvements and resell the CR2 witch contains the changes without redestributing the Obj and or the Textures  Just as it has been done many times especially on V2 then On V3, If not then Rooles might of changed again just  in this thread. I am not selling here you are the ones who sell ( Well critique was always the week point of an artist even if it was the trouth. ) I know it is hard to face reallity.   

I think you are fixed on an idea the everyone is a Thief but these are your experiences of Life and not all share the same Opinion. 

Well MR Sparky I Whant to see you rigg a figure that is composed of Props sticked together and not a single mesh !! It is not a challange the provided modell is rather a joke , it is as if you would take different props set em together with penetrating parts then bone such a figure.

you mean like a car, room, etc? we do that all the time..... standard for many models. eg a chest of drawers. model the drawers and the cabinet, rig them as the cabinet as the "body" of the figure and the drawers as the limbs...

I Mean some do a fine work in here others just make static work , If I get a Prop I expect some features For example I get a DM's Product they look great , but also is related with allot of work if you whant to have the parts to be movable as they are static. so to do so you go to the material room and ripp appart the whole thing save each material as idividual Prop then you reassemble the whole thing make a figure out of it or a new prop Parts can be moved the static is changed to a Functional Prop for animations.

It is a great Emprovement for the Originall figure. but as most in here say you Buy a figure and any changes cant be redestributed even if it is just an addon to improve the thing you actually bought it has to remain the same as it was sold. But if you take a V4 and make a WM out of it you may do so and redestribute the Improvement 

can you Please tell me where is the difference between the two acts of Modification. 

In the case of V4WM they have communicated with DAZ to find out what was and what was not allowed with respect to the EULA. If they would have followed your advise, there most likely would not have been a V4WM.

If you want to change a prop to make it more functional, you can do the same thing - ask the creator what you can and cannot do and how you should distribute the changes.

So far you have dissed most peoples work here and at DAZ as incomplete, disfuctional or ripped off. Can we see some of your handicraft in modelling?

as I remember correctly the discussions about V4 WM there where allot of Opinions how to be able to owerride the eula without getting in conflict with copyright , I assume that Daz was more flexible then most other creators concerning Hes Product !!

I am not Dissrespectfull actually just questioning your rooles witch seem pretty Conflicting.

You may not see any modifications  Made, as for you do not approve the changes and condem the Idea already befor it has been made. Confirming a Previous Comment that Ideas to emprove a artistic work  is intolerable causing that new creatores with great ideas have such a hard time to be able to redestribute there creations might give up before they even start! cause of to many questionable rooles that varrie thoughout each interpretation . 

If already the question to get information results as it is resulting in this thread and not even questioning The Answers Is tolerated and interprated as dissrespectfull then it only could be frequented by somone who is Gullable.  

So where are your models?

Khai-J-Bach - well said. gate - thanks for confirming what I've thought for a while. Probably not just me either :) wimvdb - now thats a very good question :)

Quote - . Confirming a Previous Comment that Ideas to emprove a artistic work  is intolerable causing that new creatores with great ideas have such a hard time to be able to redestribute there creations might give up before they even start! cause of to many questionable rooles that varrie thoughout each interpretation .

We've explained matters to you repeatedly.  But you continue to misunderstand. If you want to know why Daz permits certain types of add-ons to its figures, I strongly suggest you ask them directly, by email, or in their forums.  Then you will get the definitive answer, straight from the source.

Please don't take this the wrong way because I am not implying anything about your intelligence, but it seems very likely to me that the reason you are seeing lots of different interpretations that don't make sense to you is that copyright law is complicated, and I don't think your English is good enough to grasp the subtleties of interpretations and laws written in English. Your best bet will be to find the laws of your nation and study them in your language. Or ask a copyright lawyer who speaks your language to explain things to you.

Quote - and it is not the govenment or a Berne convention who makes the Law , we are the ones who restrict our selves we make the laws a eula just repeats what we decide

The Law is much more complicated than this and must fulfill some atributes to become a valid law.

1- A law must be promulgated by a legal autority following all the formal procedures.

Most of the laws fits in this, but there are "laws" that people think that is a law but are not laws because never were signed and published by any legal autority. Now it comes the second and important part that people almost don't know:

2- A Law must be accepted by the population. Most of the laws fail in this point and so are not a valid law. Population don't obbey these laws and if they do it is only due to police force. If a poliseman is looking at you, you follow the law, when the policeman turns his head looking at other direction, you ignore the law. It's like when athief puts a gun into your head you obbey him, but this doesn't make the bandit the Law.

3- The Law must be enforced. A law can exist, but nobody cares if is followed or not is not a valid law. There is agreat numbers of laws that fits into these cathegory. Nobody cares because it are impossible to be enforced, it are so ridiculous to be enforced, enforcing them will turn all into a chaos or are obsolette and nobody has removed them as for example, shops must have a post to tie the horse.

To end this here comes a phrase from Gandhi that I like very much:

"To disobey a law is a crime against the government. To obbey an unjust law is a crime against humanity."

Quote - I Mean some do a fine work in here others just make static work , If I get a Prop I expect some features For example I get a DM's Product they look great , but also is related with allot of work if you whant to have the parts to be movable as they are static. so to do so you go to the material room and ripp appart the whole thing save each material as idividual Prop then you reassemble the whole thing make a figure out of it or a new prop Parts can be moved the static is changed to a Functional Prop for animations.

You have never done this. Try to do it and then tell me.

I'd like to see a creator make the rear end of the toonkitty mimic compataible, then we'd have something that can talk sh*t and is actually usefull :) Seriously though kawecki, you know it ain't gonna happen. This is another one of those situs where someone reckons they know it all. Yet they rarely provide anything to back up their viewpoint.

Sorry that I could not respond to your comments right away , but as said this whole thing had its Purpose , as were working on Projects , and not as interprated from many of you to be able to runn a store At renderosity as an Artist.

In witch I sure whant to thank you all for the usefull informations and Help to resolve Planing issues for our further Site Projects , It was ment to be finding solutions how to support Art  Artists in a more convinent way Solutions to give those a chance who might not have any ( And No Mr Sparky It is not the Dark side ) Rather finding alternatives solutions to be able leading a project into the right direction. Economy needs new ideas and cant stand still. 

this is the way buisness really works Ideas will be provided from People Like you, to be able to achive a new Purpose.

and without knowing you might be one day part of this. changing your own Meaning about the things they once where , call it as you please , But this is evolution. 

Well obviously theres not always a dark side when artists look to improve their work. Indeed inpsiration from others can help. Plus usually when an artist creates new stuff they get better and thats where 'evolution' comes from. Personally, like most artists I know, I'd prefer that to be an evolution based on original thinking and creativity, not taking from the efforts of others. That doesn't restrict anyone either, if anything having to be unique makes us look at new ways, which in turn makes us better artists with better products. Certainly makes us better people than being simple aplogists for takers. Though I guess it's for some it's quicker and easier to argue for the right to use regardless, rather than actually trying to create something themselves. Trying to convince them otherwise is also an pointless uphill struggle, so I'm bowing out of this debate and make some new content for everyone to enjoy. Might even be legit - shock horror :)

Quote - 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...

Hi there. I'm new to the forums (and to Poser... I'm learning to use it to illustrate/make covers for my fictional works.) And I am in fact a licensed attorney who's been practicing intellectual property law for more than fifteen years. (I have a regular law license and a license from the USPTO.)

I have to tell you that if you had to pick one person on this discussion so far not to listen to, it would be Gate. Insomuch as I can follow what they say at all, it's usually misleading, inaccurate or flat out incorrect.

While I am a licensed attorney, nothing I say here is meant as legal advice nor should it be interpreted as such. You should always consult an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction and familiar with the relevant law before making legal decisions. And yes, I have to say that, and yes, I mean it.

That being said, the best rule of thumb is this:

if it's not yours, don't mess with it.

Good advice, as has been pointed out, when dealing with the company breakroom, good advice when playing on the playground, and good advice when dealing with intellectual property.

"Ah," I hear the cries arise. "What about... Fair Use!" dun dun dun

The first and foremost thing to remember about the Fair Use defense is that it is... a defense. When you have to assert a defense, it means things are already going south on you. Try not to put yourself in positions that have to be defended, and you will lead a more tranquil life.

The second thing to remember about Fair Use is that it is what lawyers call a question of fact. That means the law does not specifically define what is or isn't a Fair Use: the law defines the various factors which help the finder of fact (usually a jury or a judge) determine whether the particular use in question is a Fair Use.

This cannot be overemphasized: There is no, I repeat no*,* bright-line, quantifiable test as to whether something is a Fair Use.

Personal/Commercial use is not an automatic win. Making a profit or not is not an automatic win. Changing some arbitrary (and subjective) "percentage" of the original artwork is not an automatic win. There are no automatic wins. Period, end of sentence, full stop. The only way to be sure you will not be held liable for infringing a copyright is not to infringe it in the first place.

The international treaties which govern copyright are, as has been pointed out, quite complex. When the protections of a copyright issued in one country apply to uses in another country is a very complicated question and one which can't be addressed in a short forum post. However, anyone who lives in a country subject to the Berne/Paris copyright conventions, which is most of the people reading this post, should act on the assumption that copyrights from other countries are valid against any potential infringing use they might want to make, absent specifically looking up the copyright on the original work and seeing if some specific reason exists why it wouldn't. (As was pointed out one common reason is differing copyright terms.)

I hope that this provides some basic principles which people can use when considering these matters. I'll be happy to answer questions if I can, reminding you that I can't and won't give specific legal advice.

M

Quote - "As it stands, in the US, you need to register a work before you can sue."

My understanding is a little different.  You can sue in either case, it is what you can sue for that is different.

If it is registered, you can sue for damages.  If it is not registered, you can only sue to stop distribution/publication/sales of existing copies, but no monitary damages.

Close, but not quite right.

You cannot bring a suit in a US court for copyright infringement unless the copyright has been registered with the US Copyright Office. Period, end of sentence, full stop. The court will throw out your suit. (Although "without prejudice," which means you can register the copyright, and then refile your suit.) Fun fact: I once had a client who was sued in state court for breach of contract. The court ruled that what the plaintiff was really suing for was copyright infringement and threw out his suit because state courts don't have any jurisdiction over copyright infringement. He moved to a Federal court. The Feds asked him if he had the copyright registration. He said, "No, and I can't get it due to StMarc's client's dastardly doings." The court said, "That's a shame, Mr. Plaintiff. Case dismissed."

Edited to Add: Moriador is quite correct that the question of whether a copyright created in another country, and otherwise in compliance with that country's laws, is required to be registrered in the US before suit for an act of infringement that took place in the US is not definititvely settled. It won't be until the SCOTUS rules on the question, if it ever does. But, and this is not legal advice, in my opinion the general rule should be that a wise person will register before filing suit, even for a Berne/Paris-style copyright. There is a procedure to expedite the issuance of  the certificate if you are in need of it to file a suit against an infringer.

*Also, Moriador wonders about whether somebody could file a copyright application on someone else's art, effectively "stealing" the copyright. Yes, they can, it happens all the time. We have procedures for dealing with it which are outside the scope of this post. It is essentially what the plaintiff alleged happened in the case I referred to above. The court didn't buy his argument.

The distinction you make is a real one, but it doesn't do what you think it does. You can always sue for an injunction to stop the infringer doing what they're doing, and you can always sue for actual damages. What it controls is whether you can sue for statutory damages. These damages are set by law and form a minimum level of damages which do not depend on the actual damages (lost revenue, profits, etc) suffered by you. It can also control whether you are eligible for damage multipliers: wilfully infringing a registered copyright can lead to awards of up to TRIPLE damages plus costs and fees, which is a LOT of money. Minimum statutory damages are $750 per work, and maximum is $150,000.

Pretty interesting , then I assume that the creaores in here will have allot of work registring there work :-)  and actually was my first argument that before claiming it a complete creaton of theres it should be done this way , correct me if i am wrong , but if they would do so ,  the the releases could not flood like they do right not , it probably would slow down the publications considerably !!

 then also , well i assume that the creator will have to be able to prove on registring a product that this one is in no case a derrivitive work , is it, then they will have to attatch each written permission to the copyright.

do this also to protect the consumer ( Buyer ) , if not then it would be fraud causing the enduser also to get in troubble by using and publishing renders of derivitive non approved work!! 

well , if the creator really would be as senceare then the prices would rise to the Sky like grafic products that are licenced , there we recognize the licence on the pricing as they are considerably higher and not to compair with poser products.

especially considering that if a Creator has a pricig of 10$ the effective gain would be probably 7$ or 5$ the store gets the rest. 

I believe you're wrong on the fraud aspect, gate.  Far as I know, the purchaser of infringing content can't be held responsible for its use within the terms of use/license agreement which comes with the product.  In this case, I believe the law assumes the purchaser bought the item in good faith, unless there's clear and distinct evidence to show otherwise.

Keep in mind this has happend several times here and Renderosity - after consulting with their legal experts and the victims of copyright theft - will advise the purchasers of their options which usually boil down to:

Delete the bad content and receive a refund, or

Keep the bad content - if the victim gives permission - and use it as you would a legitimate product.  Please keep in mind this applies only if the victim gives permission.

Both scenarios have happened here in the past and good faith is always assumed on the part of the purchaser. 

A perfect example of the first scenario was a texture set series made by someone under the name of SuicideGirlz.  When it was found the name and the tattoos used were in violation, the products were pulled and people were told to delete them.

The second scenario happened when a vendor called ByteMe0k was found to have stolen textures from another artist, StefyZZ.  In these cases, Stefy gave permission for the stolen products to be used legitimately.  Renderosity, in this case, also gave customers the option of a refund on condition they deleted the offending content.  I took the option to keep them since they were useful to me at the time.

Quote - I believe you're wrong on the fraud aspect, gate.  Far as I know, the purchaser of infringing content can't be held responsible for its use within the terms of use/license agreement which comes with the product.

Such a use is almost certainly not willful infringement, but the person who uses copyrighted material thinking they had a license, when they didn't, can still be liable for actual damages to the holder of copyright. Copyright infringement, at heart, is a tort of strict liability. (What lawyers call "mens rea" and what normal people call "intent" or "motive" is not required, save the intent to actually use the material.) They won't get damage multipliers and they probably won't get costs and fees, but the holder of copyright can get damages.

Example, although this is based on the right of publicity, not copyright: Model signs contract with agency giving it the right to release his right of publicity to clients under certain conditions. Model poses for product label photograph. Agency signs release to Manufacturer which gives more release than Agency had to give. Manufacturer uses Model's likeness on product label for many years before Model, completely by accident, finds out about it, and sues. Manufacturer claims defense of release. Result: Release was not valid because party who signed it had no authority to do so. Model wins.

This really happened and the model was awarded millions of dollars in damages. There's a lot more to it than this and I've oversimplified the reason that the release was no good, but that's the jist of it. Same thing can happen in copyright.

Again, not legal advice, consult a lawyer with respect to any actual and specific questions.

Quote - Such a use is almost certainly not willful infringement, but the person who uses copyrighted material thinking they had a license, when they didn't, can still be liable for actual damages to the holder of copyright. Copyright infringement, at heart, is a tort of strict liability. (What lawyers call "mens rea" and what normal people call "intent" or "motive" is not required, save the intent to actually use the material.) They won't get damage multipliers and they probably won't get costs and fees, but the holder of copyright can get damages.

Example, although this is based on the right of publicity, not copyright: Model signs contract with agency giving it the right to release his right of publicity to clients under certain conditions. Model poses for product label photograph. Agency signs release to Manufacturer which gives more release than Agency had to give. Manufacturer uses Model's likeness on product label for many years before Model, completely by accident, finds out about it, and sues. Manufacturer claims defense of release. Result: Release was not valid because party who signed it had no authority to do so. Model wins.

This really happened and the model was awarded millions of dollars in damages. There's a lot more to it than this and I've oversimplified the reason that the release was no good, but that's the jist of it. Same thing can happen in copyright.

Again, not legal advice, consult a lawyer with respect to any actual and specific questions.

Very useful, and good to know. Thank you.

Yep, extremely useful info.  Thank you for that.