Hey all ---

I'm  just wondering -- why are real world things frowned upon in Poser?  I don't see why.

I came from another hobby (flight simming) before starting here.  If you look through flightsim.com's website, you'll see tons of repaints taht are for "real world airlines".  So I have to ask.  Who is wrong here?  Us for saying no to real world items/logos or flightsim.com entire flight sim hobby for allowing it?

Hoping now you'll understand my confusion on the subject.  I think it's petty really, and we should just be able to do as we please.  Don't you think companies would be thrilled to see their items in Poser weather it be a real truck company/ T-Shirt for a band, etc?

I do.

put it this way. the items you mention? the flight sim stuff? are breaking copyright and / or trademarks. now go back to the dicussion before. nothing has changed.

I just find that odd.  Flightsim.com has been online for over 10 years.  I find it hard to believe that no airlines/etc didn't try to force them not to have removed content if we're breaking copyright/trademark etc over there.

We also do repaints of real world aircraft designs, like on the Citation X, etc. 

Maybe that's why I'm so confused on this thing.

don't be confused. just because they've not had action against them does not mean they are not breaking copyright. they still are. they could have action taken against them at anytime. it's not that confusing at all.

You would need to find out if permission has been given for the use of trademarks in particular.  It also makes a slight difference if the items are free. (fan use of copyright items is sometimes allowed for the publicity.

They are free Mark, just like my textures were going to be.....WERE being the keyword.

After the snipes I receive here, I'm not sure if I'm going to upload anything for free really any more. :sad:

hold on. telling you the truth about copyright is Sniping?

Ragtopjohnny, you are not worth the time to help. you don't listen, you dismiss anything that does not match your idea of what should be as "sniping" and "trolling".

* I will help those what actually want to be helped and are capable of being helped, and I suggest everyone else do the same.*

good day sir and I won't darken any thread of yours again.

Quote - I just find that odd.  Flightsim.com has been online for over 10 years.  I find it hard to believe that no airlines/etc didn't try to force them not to have removed content if we're breaking copyright/trademark etc over there.

We also do repaints of real world aircraft designs, like on the Citation X, etc. 

Maybe that's why I'm so confused on this thing.

It could also be that they have agreements with these companies to use their logos. That however, does not transfer to you. LOL

Laurie

Quote - They are free Mark, just like my textures were going to be.....WERE being the keyword.

After the snipes I receive here, I'm not sure if I'm going to upload anything for free really any more. :sad:

You know it's SOOOOO easy to open even something like MS Paint and type in a few letters and make a ficticious logo. Why not do that? If you upload a Coke can with a real label on it, even to free stuff, the mods in the freestuff forum will kick it back to you. I've seen it time and time again.

Laurie

really?! Again..

Its not your place or my place to decide what the trademark holders will Like or not like.  If you think they will like your use of their IP then its pretty easy.. you ask and they either expressly permit you to use it according to whatever terms and conditions they apply or they dont permit you to use it.    Its still their right to make that desicion.

Maybe that trucking company would be happy to see their logo on a poer model... or maybe they'd be pissed when some ass hat decides to use that logo on a poser model in some unseamly render and posts it on the internet. (and I've seen poser models used for lots of things that would be illegal if they were done with real people)

Quote - Hey all ---

I'm  just wondering -- why are real world things frowned upon in Poser?  I don't see why.

I came from another hobby (flight simming) before starting here.  If you look through flightsim.com's website, you'll see tons of repaints taht are for "real world airlines".  So I have to ask.  Who is wrong here?  Us for saying no to real world items/logos or flightsim.com entire flight sim hobby for allowing it?

Hoping now you'll understand my confusion on the subject.  I think it's petty really, and we should just be able to do as we please.  Don't you think companies would be thrilled to see their items in Poser weather it be a real truck company/ T-Shirt for a band, etc?

I do.

Then ask. It's as simple as that. Contact the holder of the copyright or trademark, and ask for permission. It is NOT better to beg forgiveness in cases like this.

The site mentioned flightsim.com has a page on uploads. It makes interesting reading.

http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/content.php?84

Note: there are links at the top of the copyright forum that may help if you are in the USA. Rendo has a copyright person if there is some question on a store item or freebie.

Thanks Mark.

I have to wonder too, when I see the Impalas and Nova being sold in the store.  Do they have permission to use Chevy's trademark and logo?  Makes me curious there.

Anyway, reading this thread, I was going to attach a picture of the truck and email the company afterwards and ask if it's permittable to use it in a form such as this.  I'll keep you all posted.

DAZ has a "36 AM Sedan" among their listings.  How odd, when I first became aware of it, it was a "36 Chevy Sedan".  Long time ago now, but I seem to remember the Chevy logo on the front, which is not in the copy I have.

But it goes back and it's something serious, just ask any HO scale modeler.  The Union Pacific got uppity about the model manufacturers using the name, on models of locos that ONLY the UP had.  Rivarosi made a very nice, decently accurate UP Big Boy, but now, it comes painted black.  If you want a name on it, you have to do it yourself, unless that has changed in the last few years.  Don't know if that was the start, but manufacturers  are kindy touchy about their logos being used on other products.

D.

Copyright and trademark infringement are like speeding and running stop signs. They happen constantly and relatively few instances actually result in court action.

Does that mean that it's safe to speed and run stop signs?

That's entirely up to you. If you think it's safe, feel free. Do it. Suffer the consequences if you're wrong.

However, when you get into a taxi, you can't expect them to speed and run stop signs just because you think it's safe.

Likewise, if you want to offer freebies that contain other people's IP, you are totally free to upload them to your own server and give them away. If that results in DMCA takedowns or a suit against you, it's still entirely your choice to take that risk.

But you can't expect Renderosity to list those things.

Renderosity is like the taxi driver. They have to make their own decisions about the risks they are willing to take.

--

We aren't sniping at you. We're just offering you some free personal advice. If you want better, actual real legal advice, you NEED TO TALK TO AN IP ATTORNEY.

Copyright law IS confusing, and like just about every other area of law, it is not enforced reliably or consistently. That's just how life is. It doesn't always make sense.

Johnny, Say you put this texture up in freestuff.

Someone on the other side of the world downloads it.
And uses the truck with your texture in a porn picture or movie.

Where did that texture with MY COMPANY name come from????

BANG => You HANG!

Getting it? No self respected company wants a direct link to porn.

Poser and DS are all about naked people.
Its a thin line between artistic nude and what some people/companies/countries/laws see as pornography.

A Flight sim is about airplanes.
This is about people.
Unfortunately for you, semi- or naked people most of the time.

Want  a name for a transport company?
Invent one. => And Google, Google, Google to be absolutely SURE it does NOT exist yet.

Completly different worlds and perseptions.

That may be part of it. The flight sim skins are probably rarely seen outside of the simulators themselves or sites that cater to them. There's not much derogatory you could do to an airline there except crash their plane. The carriers may see it as a net positive or at least not a big negative Depends on the company and the circumstances. If you were to do something using their livery that the airline didn't like, it would probably be a different story.

There was a piece on the news the other night about a woman who had gotten a micro finance loan and opened up a small party store that sells balloons, pinatas etc. She had Disney characters all over the place. Given how touchy Disney is about their stuff, I wondered if she would be getting a call from their lawyers - assuming the characters weren't licensed. 

Speaking of Disney and lawsuits:

http://themovieblog.com/2008/disney-sues-clowns-over-costumes/

I used to do the ordering for a store that sold parties supplies and balloons and cards and so on. They are generally licensed, and the wholesale cost is double what it is for regular stuff. It doesn't matter, though, because the markup is huge anyway. When you're paying 40 cents for a balloon that you will sell for $4, it's still a big profit, even though, without Mickey et al, you only pay 20 cents. The biggest cost is not in the balloon; it's in the labour for the person filling it with helium and tying the ribbon on it.

Quote - But it goes back and it's something serious, just ask any HO scale modeler.  The Union Pacific got uppity about the model manufacturers using the name, on models of locos that ONLY the UP had.  Rivarosi made a very nice, decently accurate UP Big Boy, but now, it comes painted black.  If you want a name on it, you have to do it yourself, unless that has changed in the last few years.  Don't know if that was the start, but manufacturers  are kindy touchy about their logos being used on other products.

It actually has changed. UP was asking royalties, but relented after the bad press...

I think the question can be answered with quite simple logic, would you take textures from a model you had downloaded either from the market place or from freestuff and then apply those texures to your own work without first asking the creator for permission?

Apply the same logic to a brand, logo or corporate design........

Attached Link: Digital Photographers SLR Kit

I Quote your Question
why are real world things frowned upon in Poser?

they do this in here every day, and are not any better then others
fact is that the Poser creators just don't admit the real facts :)
but they still will do it behind doors ,will there be a confrontation with one 
of the products in the Poser Stores the answer will be , there is still a
slight difference !!!

If you base your moral decisions on whether or not someone out there has already done it, you can justify any crime, any behavior, no matter how abhorrent.

But I admit: I am very surprised to see this product in the marketplace. It's clearly Canon's logo.

ETA: I guess the answer is the same as you will get if you note the rampant copyright violations in the galleries: if you're not a representative of the actual owner of the property, no one will listen. If Canon complained, they would pull the product, I'm sure.

Poser models fly under the radar, for the most part. So again, as I said before, whether or not you want to use someone else's IP in your stuff is your choice, and apparently, sometimes, Renderosity will sometimes let things slide.

I'm guessing that chances are, you'll never end up third party to a lawsuit involving a purchaser of your model. Again, you take the risks, and your customers, who trust that you got permission to use this IP without asking for proof, take their risks. It'll probably be okay. But who knows? I've run a couple of red lights in my life. I'm still alive. But I would counsel against anyone ever running red lights because if it does turn out bad, it can turn out very very bad, and it's so easy to avoid. Just put on the brakes at the light. :) Just change the freakin' logo to your own.

When it comes to game mods in general, as long as the item is made by the end user (not taken from another game) and no money is made from it then it is no different then fan art.

In regards to name brand items in a market place, stores such as Turbosquid have been selling cars that are clearly marked as real world vehicles, 3 of which I have purchased.  But each was made by the artist, their models are original though they look the similar to the naked eye.  I am concerned about Lamborghini comming after me, no, not at all.  I paid for someones artwork.  How is it any different from someone taking a picture of the real car and selling the picture when the car company does not make a dime from it either?

Quote - How is it any different from someone taking a picture of the real car and selling the picture when the car company does not make a dime from it either?

The question is what the end user does with the product. Since you don't know what use they might put it to, you never know whether that use will come under scrutiny.

Take stock photography, for instance. Most sites insist that no corporate logos be visible because their customers are businesses who are going to use the photos in advertising, and using someone else's logo or product in your own advertising can potentially imply all sorts of things which will make you liable for infringement.

For the purposes of making art, even if you're going to sell the art, interpretation of the laws has usually been in favor of the artist, though not always.

However, if you make a product to sell to other people who may use that product in their advertising, you open yourself up to a whole new world.

Art and advertising, as I understand it, are not treated as equivalents under US IP laws.

Actually it is fully tolerated and legal to do so
first of all you will not go in direct competition with the
tangible Product as it is just an Image of such.
then considering using a model witch represents
a tangible Product with the logo is not to use for your own
Purposes selling your own brand.

In the case of Cannon it is Profitable for the Industries
will someone use this model in one of He's renders it only would result to free Propaganda of the tangible represented Product.

Industries Like this sample with Cannon spend millions to Advertise there Products
and you can be sure that if they realize that there Brand has been used for a render
without charges they would kiss your Hand.

for example you make a Advertisement using Poser Renders for your own Company
there shows in the background that Camera with the Cannon Brand .... the visual communication effect would be ... in foreground the company as main Advertisement the background will only tell you we use Cannon Products , therefor the brand will not be able to sue you as you only made an supplementary advertisement in your Product and you don't go into direct competition with Cannon

Remember the world is not all Virtual jet

Why should the person who made the content be held responsable for the actions for the end user?  Let me ask it in this regard, have you ever heard of a hammer manufacturer or a company that sells hammers being sued because someone bought the hammer and used it to muder someone else?  Extreme yes, but it is the point.  A tool maybe created for a specific purpose but only the person using it is responsible for what is done with it. 

Quote -
In the case of Cannon it is Profitable for the Industries
will someone use this model in one of He's renders it only would result to free Propaganda of the tangible represented Product.

Industries Like this sample with Cannon spend millions to Advertise there Products
and you can be sure that if they realize that there Brand has been used for a render
without charges they would kiss your Hand.

I bet my bottom dollar if some xxxrated artist made a render of a canon camera being shoved up a male/females intimate parts, I don't see them kissing your hand.

There are companies who thrive on free advertising, and there are companies who will sue you for breathing their brand name in a derogatory manner. Personally I'd rather not take the risk and rename my camera a "Nonac" (providing there isnt a nonac brand, must remember to google these things......)

The bottom line, and an excellent rule of thumb for using anyone's IP, Trademark, etc. can be found in the old saying "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime". Or, more appropriately in this case, if you can't afford the lawers to fight it, and/or don't have the funds to pay damages/restitution (which can be much greater than the total sum of money you recieved for selling said item), error on the side of caution and don't use it. Treademark and IP infringement is a real sticky wicket, not a position most folks would like to find themselves in, unless they have an army af lawers on their side, ready to defend them.

Here is an excellent example of how convoluted it can get:

http://www.legalzoom.com/intellectual-property-rights/trademarks/when-is-unauthorized-use-not

Taking a case to the Supreme Court, like the ones cited at the above link is very costly, and takes years. Sure, you may get away with it, and never be contacted by any representative from the company in question, but is it really worth the risk?

If it is strictly "fan art" and totally free, your probably OK with it. Otherwise, IMHO, error on the side of caution, because nobody wants to talk to the suits.

Let's make the trucking companies aware of each other,

There are three J Lines

J Line Transport

J Line Transportation

J Line Trucking

Only one has a registered trademark, the other two are in violation.

The one pictured in the render does not have the trademark.

"I bet my bottom dollar if some xxxrated artist made a render of a canon camera being shoved up a male/females intimate parts, I don't see them kissing your hand."

It has happened at least once (probably more) in case(s) where adult producers have been sued ofve 'product placements.'  No shoving involved, just having the products visible in circumstances the owner felt were derogatory. 

Interesting website. I didn't look around but they have a forum (not taking new members at the while changing software) where people can as IP questions. I don't know how good it is but certainly more specialized. 

http://www.intelproplaw.com/

Quote - Why should the person who made the content be held responsable for the actions for the end user?  Let me ask it in this regard, have you ever heard of a hammer manufacturer or a company that sells hammers being sued because someone bought the hammer and used it to muder someone else?  Extreme yes, but it is the point.  A tool maybe created for a specific purpose but only the person using it is responsible for what is done with it. 

But Poser content is not made for a specific purpose, unless you state in your terms which uses are not permittted.

You could put "no use in porn, no use in advertising, no use in any creation pipline that involves a product that could be construed to compete with company whose logos are on the model, no use that might put the company whose logos were used in a negative light, no use that might be construed as defamatory to the company or that might result in loss of value or sales" in your terms. But I don't think Renderosity goes that far. And I doubt you'd get many sales.

You could say the same thing for a hammer. But since lawsuits of the sort you mention HAVE been filed, it's been decided that where the specific use of the product is obvious and clear to any reasonable person, it doesn't need to be specified. Where it isn't obvious, it does. But who decides what's obvious? The courts. And by the time you're in court, you've lost lots of money. THIS is why so many products have the silliest liability disclaimers on them: Do not use hairdryer while in bathtub, for instance; or do not insert body parts into vacuum cleaner hose. One company went so far as to specify WHICH body parts you really wanted to avoid inserting into vacuum cleaner hoses, with a warning: Do not insert penis into vacuum cleaner hose. Because I guess if it happens enough, maybe the courts will decide that the specific use really isn't obvious.

The specific uses of Poser models are very unlikely to be obvious to your average person. And even in this community, we could argue over whether we should be able to use various models in porn or advertising etc. I bet most would say that it's understood that there are no restrictions on renders whatsoever, unless stated as "no commericial use".

ETA: Also, there's a difference between the liability of a third party for an act that is criminal (murdering someone), and their civil liability (knocking in nails in a structure that later collapsed because they used the wrong kind of nail).

No vendor has the ability to stop their content from being used for illegal purposes.  Its impossible to prevent.  The end user is responsible for their own actions and they are responsible for the concequences of those actions.  Cars do not carry labels stating "do not kill people with this vehicle" nor is it required of any manufacturer in any country.  Why?  Because people are expected to use common sense when operating a motor vehicle.  If the end user cannot excercise common sense that is their problem and theirs alone.  NO ONE who produces content, paid for or free, should be held responsible for the illegal actions of their customers.

Quote - Why should the person who made the content be held responsable for the actions for the end user?  Let me ask it in this regard, have you ever heard of a hammer manufacturer or a company that sells hammers being sued because someone bought the hammer and used it to muder someone else?  Extreme yes, but it is the point.  A tool maybe created for a specific purpose but only the person using it is responsible for what is done with it. 

Actually, this happens every day in the USA.  Driver hits the accelerator instead of the brake and strikes building causing property damage ... auto manufacturer gets sued for "unintended acceleration".  Individual purchases aerosol oven cleaner, sprays directly at friend's face injuring eyes ... oven cleaner manufacturer gets sued for "failure to warn (labeling considered insufficient as it does not direct user not to spray in someone's eyes).  Idiot purchases mandoline slicer, cuts off tips of own fingers slicing veggies without using included handle ... manufacturer gets sued for "improper packaging / labeling".

How many of these do you want?  Happens every day.

You cannot accedently render or animate porn, it takes effort.  Anyone who spends ten minutes using Poser or DS should realize that it takes effort to produce anything in the software.  You dont just launch the software and presto, great art start rendering.  It takes effort.  To produce any kind of image or animation with either software takes effort.  Effort on the behalf of the end user.  The content cannot force its way in to the scene.  Even if a content creator ended up in court, it must be proven that they produced with the intent to have illegal images or animations produced with their content.

How would you label content?  Cause the moment you start, anything NOT on the label is a loop hole and because it was not specified, some idiot will do it in hopes of being able to sue.

"Happens every day in the USA"  I am not referring to JUST the USA but the whole world in general.  After all, I am not an american.

True, I doubt that manufacturers would be held responsible for the criminal acts of their customers, except in a very few cases. But there have been numerous lawsuits against gun manufacturers and sellers over exactly this issue. Yes. Guns. Intentionally killing people. What a surprise!

Sure, most of the time, the manufacturer isn't found liable. But again, do you really want to have to go to court to defend yourself?

http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/1752/Court-Rulings-on-Firearms-RESPONSIBILITY-HANDGUN-DEATHS.html

Copyright infringement, or violation of publicity rights/trademark aren't necessarily criminal. In fact, I'd guess there are relatively few instances of criminal indictment. Most of those would be against people such as Kim Dotcom or founders of Pirate Bay. However, the number of civil actions against infringers is likely enormous.

So:

Your customer does something to anger a copyright holder and gets sued. Then that customer names you as third party to the suit because they reasonably believed you had permission from that copyright holder to use their IP.

No intentional infringement necessary.

ETA: Since we're talking about the hazards and responsibilities of placing products in the Renderosity marketplace, the laws of the US are relevant.

Quote - I just find that odd.  Flightsim.com has been online for over 10 years.  I find it hard to believe that no airlines/etc didn't try to force them not to have removed content if we're breaking copyright/trademark etc over there.

We also do repaints of real world aircraft designs, like on the Citation X, etc. 

Maybe that's why I'm so confused on this thing.

Some sims have agreements with commercial/corporate branding that basically say it's ok to use their logos, liveries, etc in games as long as crashing planes, trains, boats, farm equipment, etc is not graphically shown.

Poser has nekked people.  Would commercial/corporate businesses have a say in how users render their trademarks with pinups?

Yes. I'm just imagining an animation featuring aircraft crashing into skyscrapers making it on to YouTube. I doubt that if it used a single identifiable piece of someone else's IP that it would last long -- if it started to get many views, that is.

"ETA: Since we're talking about the hazards and responsibilities of placing products in the Renderosity marketplace, the laws of the US are relevant."

True, though I do not think that Renderosity, DAZ3D, RDNA or any other US based content provider would have much to be worried about IF the illegal use of the content and/or software by the user occured outside the United States and all illegal materials (images and animations) were hosted on non US based servers.  Since Laws do not cross borders the store and content providers should not have to be held responsable since it occured outside their legal relm.

Perhaps DAZ3D, Renderosity, RDNA and the other stores should consider adjusting the EULA (if its not already there) to clearly state that the end users are solely and legally responsable for their own actions with the software and content as no such things are provided with the intent of performing illegal acts.  Especially in terms of illegal images and animation.

Johnny - Gate - do you know why everyone gets so narked about stuff like this? For some artists, poser is nothing more than a way of avoiding the embarrassment of buying pervy mags from the local newsagents. For others it's our job and provides the income that feeds our families. So when someone comes along and risks that, or supports stealing, they are gonna get p*ssed off with you. More so when you keep trying to find new ways of justifying it. Also think about this. What could happen if you land an artist in big trouble as a result of your actions?