Forum Coordinators: RedPhantom
Poser - OFFICIAL F.A.Q (Last Updated: 2025 Jan 10 1:16 pm)
That looks fantastic! I am also a fan of Brian's work. The bump map and detail on the character is incredible too. The three things I would suggest is the following: 1) Make the hands larger, notice in the photo that the hands almost touch the ground and the thumb and palm of the hand are much more pronounced. 2) Make the shoes longer, it should be about half the body height. 3) Make the eyes more narrow. They almost squint in most the images. They should slant down rather then up. I think what atthisstage meant by "suggested in the texture wrap" is that you paint on 2 pieces in the texture rather then making a separate 2 pieces model. Great job again!
Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=12395
lynnJonathan An excellent question. Though your character resembles the illustration, I'd say it differs enough, to constitute a different work. That's my opinion, for what it's worth. Since this is created from scratch, in an entirely different medium as the original. It would constitute an original work. The next question to consider would be; is it a licensed character? If it were a well-known character upon whose semblance a significant portion of the creator's income depended or derived (ie, Disney characters, Movie characters,etc.) reproduced by name &/or in a context that might cause a buyer to mistake it as being from the original creator, that would be a problem indeed! In this case it's based on a simple sketch of an unnamed figure in an art book. My take on it, is that as long as you didn't name it "Frouds goblin 1" or anything similar, you'd be in the clear. If you were to do 2 or 3 variations (Older, Younger, Female, etc.) & offer as something like "the gnomekins" or "podling family" it would be even better (not to mention more appealing to prospective buyers). Again, this is my opinion, based on my own experiences. I do know that if someone presents an artist with an image of a licensed character, and commissions the artist to do another version of it specifically for them, the customer is responsible & assumed to have aquired the necessary permissions. (this is how tattoo artists get away with doing Winnie-The-Pooh tats, without aquiring license or let from the Disney Corporation). So, for instance if Teena were to pay you for your work, that would be okay in any event, & Teena would be responsible for any infractions resulting from it's later commercial use. In any event, I'd recommend, at this point, taking it to the Renderocity Copyrights & Ethical Standards Forum (on the right, under Admin Forums) Posting the original sketch, a render of your creation, & getting their take on it. Then proceed from there. For my part, I'd love to get the little spud! If you post it in freestuff, or make it a commercial product, I'd want it either way. If you do take it to C&ESF, post a note here, or cut & paste this posting from me, if you think it'll help. Good luck! Jerry B leather-guyWow! He is too cool! Oh PLEASE make him available!!! I think I would have to agree that your model is different enough to constitute a new character. The point about the shirt and trousers being separate items in Froud's but not in yours is a good thing in this case, because that is a structural difference in the characters as they are presented. The original image is from the 1977 art book "Faeries" by Brian Froud and Allen Lee, which book is still in print (I keep a steady supply of them, teehee). So again I will ask you, PLEASE! Make him available! Haha! Thorne =};-}>
This site uses cookies to deliver the best experience. Our own cookies make user accounts and other features possible. Third-party cookies are used to display relevant ads and to analyze how Renderosity is used. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understood our Terms of Service, including our Cookie Policy and our Privacy Policy.