SanctumArt is getting out there

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6197/diamond-multimedia-ships-gc1000-1080p-pvr-with-video-passthrough-for-game-consoles

Oh I miss his stuff so much!!! I wish that we could buy some of the old models i didn't pick up when the website was live!!!

Bravo!

Ariana

That assumes they're even aware. Diamond (I think it was diamond) once used someone's art without their knowledge or permission. There's no guarantee Sanctum has a clue this is out there.

ISTR Sanctum had a "No commercial use" clause on most of his stuff, which put a lot of people off buying 'em.  It didn't put me off.  :)

Actually most of the creatures were OK, it was his military stuff he prized the most! I am fairly certain he did contribute to the 'Gears of War' franchise and that was what made him leave the lower poser commercial side of things.

He is still awesome in my book! Wish he would hear this and come back.

HugZ!
Ariana

"I am fairly certain he did contribute to the 'Gears of War' franchise and that was what made him leave the lower poser commercial side of things."

None of the above is true.

Cheers

My My bold print even! :) Well I had heard this I believe over at CGS. But if I am wrong, it could have been said without the poopy face and bold print.

Have a danish and cheer up yourself! ;)

Ariana

meh, that's not bold - Wolf usually quotes in Orange :)

"meh, that's not bold - Wolf usually quotes in Orange :)"

Correct Sir
I know Micheal (S.A.) through a common third party
in fact I have an unreleased Sanctumart original in my runtime that he "poserized " just for me recently from another project
to show his thanks for my years of support during his DAZ days

Although I wont disclose them publicly
I happen to know the reasons he left the poser content scene and it was not due to the reason stated by FFD in this thread

Not upset.. dont need a Danish.. just correcting misinformation I saw  posted about someone I consider collegue and a friend

Cheers

Well, there's a lesson. If you don't tell people the real reasons you did something (left someone/somewhere, killed someone, exploded a bomb, etc) they are going to speculate, and at least half of them are going to be way off the mark.

No way to avoid it. Except by remaining hopelessly obscure, which, I can tell you from experience, works very well.

Well thank you for I will consider an apology for what I felt was not really a nice response, and I send that back to you with an apology for taking it wrong. :) I am glad to hear that S.A. is well and alive, and while I was wrong in what I had heard, I meant no malice about any of this post.

I do hope that S.A.'s beautiful work is not plagerized. That would be unconsionable.

Ariana

PPS.... ThanX Frank! ;)

Strange how something like this jumps out at you.  About a year ago there was an advert in the PC mags, I think for a graphics card, but I may be wrong.  The guys I work with thought I had gone mad when I started talking about a 'Complicated Eve' but it was clearly Uzilite's outfit that had been used

"I do hope that S.A.'s beautiful work is not plagerized. That would be unconsionable."

Hi also on the subject of your original post that "Grim" armor is part owned by sony pictures inc as it was commissioned for one of their straight to DVD scf fi movie releases yeas ago.
( hence the restrictive EULA)

if indeed it is being used for unauthorized commercial branding they will have bigger people than Michael to deal with I assure you.

Cheers

Some links of interest

http://swecoverdb.se/uploads/gallery/album_2/gallery_1_2_1789575.jpg

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1214983/companycredits

Cheers

Whoa! Looks like some really gruesome graphics in there! o0 Is this some of Michael's new work? Very intriguing mouth parts on that fellow!

Ariana

The film itself is typical low budget Sci Fi gore
However the The "Grim" Armor is clearly in use by the foreground Males on the DVD cover Image  owned by Sony Entertainment
home DVD .
that was my point with the links.

Cheers

Ahh! I understand. You know i never had any intention of starting rumors about S.A., I truly had heard that he was a part of the GoW franchise... not knowing better, I repeated what I had heard and since no one where I had originally had heard it said otherwise (*probably thinking that person foolish), I assumed it was so. And we all know what happens when you assume.... :x

Thank you!

Ariana

Jeez, it's a friggin' minefield!! 

Seriously though, I was approached to do some stuff for a graphics card company a while back who had seen my Poser work at CGS.  It made me look at the licences of about 90% of the Poser stuff I was going to use.  I had to decline the commission - cost me £600; I think I dodged a legal bullet but it really hurt to say no!

Attached Link: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/MTN-GUARD-Fantasy-Art-Print-Poster-Frazetta-Boris-D-D-Dungeons-Dragons-Like-/150891097844?pt=Art_Prints&hash=item2321cf6ef4

"Only 250 people in the world will ever own a print like this, will you be one?"

...I sincerely hope not!

"I was approached to do some stuff for a graphics card company a while back who had seen my Poser work at CGS."

The thing that gets people into conflict is the issue of "branding" & Trademarking

Simplified Example :
I could create all kinds of animation with the  "R2D2" Droid from star wars
even spoofs that are actually derisive of the star wars franchise.

But if I start a robotics company called 'Wolf's Robotics and incorporate   "R2D2" into my business logo and advertising/marketing material in a way that clearly associated  "R2D2" with my "brand" that is when the Attorneys From Lucas Films will come calling.

This is  the standard restriction for most trademarked characters from Darth Vader to Batman to yes... Sanctumart's "Grim"
Many in the poser/Daz communities were not aware of this and thought Michael was being unduly restrictive and formed a bitter culture of vilification around the man particularly in the DAZ forums.

Cheers

No problem with Michael's restrictions they're there for all to see (or those who choose to look at the licence!) - I respect his work and his commercial rights, and he's a brilliant artist to boot!

Quote - Oh dear.  Mind you $250 is not to be sniffed at...!

"Only 250 people in the world will ever own a print like this, will you be one?"

...I sincerely hope not!

o0

Oh heck, no matter how I word it, it doesn't come out right.

I did have the priveledge of knowing Frank and Ellie.... thank goodness I know what a Frazetta looks like first hand.

~A~

Quote - Jeez, it's a friggin' minefield!! 

Seriously though, I was approached to do some stuff for a graphics card company a while back who had seen my Poser work at CGS.  It made me look at the licences of about 90% of the Poser stuff I was going to use.  I had to decline the commission - cost me £600; I think I dodged a legal bullet but it really hurt to say no!

Does this mean the stuff bought in market places can not be used? Just a little confused.

Quote - Does this mean the stuff bought in market places can not be used? Just a little confused.

No, far from it.  Most of the products you buy here and elsewhere will permit full commercial use, some will not.  The donors of freebies often don't permit commercial useage, but many do.  The advice is to read the licence when you install, and if you ever find yourself in the position of your work being potentially used for commercial purposes, check and re-check the licences of the content you used to make your work, including Photoshop brushes! In my case I had some old models that I couldn't find the licences for to check, so decided not to take the risk.

Some licences which permit commercial useage also have other restrictions though - I know of one VERY popular vendor who does not allow 3D real-world models to be made from their products, for example.

Check, check and check again. 

Quote - > Quote - Does this mean the stuff bought in market places can not be used? Just a little confused.

No, far from it.  ...

Some licences which permit commercial useage also have other restrictions though - I know of one VERY popular vendor who does not allow 3D real-world models to be made from their products, for example.

And who might that be? And what do you mean by who does not allow 3D real-world models to be made from their products? That is a rather vague description. Can  you clarify this comment and what you are saying? Do you mean 3D to 2D? Or using one model and augmenting it to create another? (*because that is what the comment sounds like).

I always read the read me first, because I only buy for commercial purposes.

~Ariana~

I think they mean that you can't copy their models in an actual physical capacity, the key word here being copy.  Like making an action figure or sculpture based on their work.

I'm not going to identify the vendor; I personally have no problem with the licence.

Quote -

And who might that be? And what do you mean by who does not allow 3D real-world models to be made from their products?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_printing

Quote - > Quote -

And who might that be? And what do you mean by who does not allow 3D real-world models to be made from their products?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_printing

Oh, I was thinking 3D to 2D, but it is an interesting link! Thank you!!! ;)

Paul, why would you not post the name? A vendor is a Vendor and all disclosure is good for all of the customers. I have yet to see any vendor that had such a codecy attatched to their products, because the RMP/Daz/RDNA EULA precludes these things. So cough up a name so buyers and others can check it out.

Ariana

Quote - ...

And who might that be? And what do you mean by who does not allow 3D real-world models to be made from their products? That is a rather vague description.

I think PaulFrancis meant a statement like this in a license:

Quote - This License does not grant permission to produce a real, tangible replica of the 3D mesh/model/product acquired.

And yes, it is a bit vague; what should a real replica of a 3d mesh be? 3D printing is a simple case, but does it apply to buying an image and printing it onto a T-Shirt, too? On the other hand, the statement does not really prohibit anything, it just does not grant permission, so if you are allowed to create "tangible replicas" for whatever reason (for example because the model in question is in the public domain), you can simply ignore that statement altogether.

Yes that was my point! It is so vague I cannot see how it possibly would be included in any EULA. Plus as I stated, all of the major market place EULA's allow for 2D renders, and that includes for commercial purposes.

I believe that it means making another Mesh/Object from an original. Unless you are just rendering the figure alone, without clothes, hair, textures, etc., how could you possibly derive a 3D mesh from a 2D image that would be of any sort of quality. Shoot just defeats the whole idea!

I don't think it would mean T-Shirts, LOL! Like those bikini torso shirts people wear to the beach?! :D Would that count as a "Tangible Replica"?

Ariana

Attached Link: Rendersoity EULA

Well, fortunately, I don't have to post the name.  I checked out the licence on one of their items I own, to verify that I really had read it right.  Turns out I'd missed a clue, because the licence included in the zip file is actually Renderosity's own EULA, as referred to in the link (4th paragraph).

*I knew that if they vend here, or at any large online marketplace that was an error.

And perhaps you are misinformed also about naming a vendor, no vendor worries if they are named, it is always good for business to have your name mentioned. I bet searches for S.A. went way up as a result of this thread! I looked to see if you had a store! ;) You have some very nice Bryce materials! I will likely download and use them! :D

Besides smart people actually contact the vendor to define questions about the read me or a product use if concerned. That's why I buy items that I can see are covered by a good reputable site. Also I never even download (*well, only if unique and clearly defined as OK for commercial use) freebies.  And then I copy the info about use to CYA.

So now you've piqued my interest, and I am sure others... altho they may not say so! :)

Only the names sir.... to protect the innocent (*customers). LOL!!! C'mon, tell....

~Ariana~

I'm pretty sure Dark Anvil has a restriction about making solid 3d models from their products, but that's because they also make solid 3d models so it would be direct competition.

Quote - *I knew that if they vend here, or at any large online marketplace that was an error.

And perhaps you are misinformed also about naming a vendor, no vendor worries if they are named, it is always good for business to have your name mentioned.... [...]

Only the names sir.... to protect the innocent (*customers). LOL!!! C'mon, tell....

~Ariana~

I think you are missing the point here. One vendor who sells under a license with that restriction would e.g. be this one:

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/index.php?vendor=372461

Unless we are arguing at cross-purposes here.

Nope, my products are fine to use in 2D renders or as Merchant resources as long as A) on the resource end they contact me for permission, and B) it is not used as direct copy over, or given away. I just state the same thing that all RMP readmes'  include on the product page.

See these are very clear instructions, which are in compliance with RMP EULA... (*my response is highlighted)

"You MAY NOT use the backgrounds in whole or as cropped/cut out elements to create competitive backgrounds. (*This means they cannot cut a portion out, because that would undercut the resources I used (*and purchased), and it would be unethical. They are intended to be used in creating art. Art is not recopying someone else's art, which this is actually stated in RMP's EULA too).

Elements in this package MAY NOT be shared separately or included in another resource pack (as they are) for sale or for free. (*Clearly states "as they are". Pretty self explanatory and not restrictive except that you must use them to create art, not just reprint them. Anyone who thinks that copy paste is art is not coming from the right mindset. Art requires your own work and verve to be independant).

Note: Generally by RMP standards you have to change by 60% to create a new version of an existing product to sell it or release it as a new product. This is not to be confused with updating a product

You MAY NOT sell the images in a printed form as they are - they are meant to be used as "backgrounds/backdrops" for commercial projects. (*States what I said previously... "as they are". You are expected to add your own touch by using characters/props/or additional content)."

This applies to any product I make. I intentionally try to make them as clean as possibly to allow another artist to expand and create. But mine is a fair and liberal policy as set by on line store guidelines. Sadly theft, plagerism and outright disregard for ethics has occurred for a lot of vendors. The reason for it being on the product page is that some of my products ended up on ShareCG... they got removed at my request, but it happens too often in the digital world. So reasonable limits are not unreasonable. Stating clearly our EULA is not the issue.

If someone created a 3D sculted image from a 3D model (*and the machine used to do this is outragiously cost prohibitive for nearly most folk!) I agree, that it is great to state that. But it also is covered in the RMP EULA. But if I did OBJ files or Models like that, and someone did make an actual Sculpt from it... I would sue. But to sue you need to CYA, and put it in writing so there is no misunderstanding. That may be what the real point is.

Was that enough info on my things? I think the only difference is I state the EULA up front. But let me know.

~Ariana~