I have a product purchased here in the store that has some material nodes hooked up to point lights, that I have never seen before. (No I have not contacted the vendor yet). I want to look at using their node layout on other lights with other products in scenes I create, all for self use. I assume BB or others could look at the nodes and tell me in 3 nanoseconds what is going on.

If I display their nodes and ask questions other vendors could see what they don't know and use it in their products. Granted they could buy the products and discovered the same as me and alter and reuse in their products themselves.

I am an IP freak to a fault. So the question is this illegal to do or morally wrong to post an image of a store purchase node tree on these forums and ask questions about them.

TIA

Gary

Super gray area. Thanks for increasing my heart burn.

My solution has been this: If I make such a complicated shader that showing it will do almost no good, you've got IP.

If I can understand it in nanoseconds from a screen shot, it's probably not a secret.

Don't show me - instead -  ask me how to do what it does. 

There isn't anything that anybody can make that I don't know how to make. It's never happened - ever.

Thanks

True it might already be in the public domain.

What the lights appear to (my guess) is calculating the distance to nearby objects and prevent Point light blow out if close to say a ceiling, yet lighting the room below. Again that ias a wild ass guess on my part

thats a more generic issue of can any combination of nodes be copyright ?

its certainly a moral issue that maybe would be better in an offline conversation.

In other programs the answer has been to introduce 'compiled' shaders, that can not be edited.

In photoshop we had the same problem with 'recorded actions' being completely open till that was changed in version CS(something)

Till then you're trusted to be on your best behaviour. ;-}

In other programs the answer has been to introduce 'compiled' shaders, that can not be edited.

In photoshop we had the same problem with 'recorded actions' being completely open till that was changed in version CS(something)

Till then you're trusted to be on your best behaviour. ;-}

---

When I can not edit a shader , i will put it right away in the garbage. Shader locking that you have to take them" right they come" are worst. I need to edit shaders for my scene , light etc.. Otherwise they are simply useless.

In other programs the answer has been to introduce 'compiled' shaders, that can not be edited.

In photoshop we had the same problem with 'recorded actions' being completely open till that was changed in version CS(something)

Till then you're trusted to be on your best behaviour. ;-}

---

When I can not edit a shader , i will put it right away in the garbage. Shader locking that you have to take them" right they come" are worst. I need to edit shaders for my scene , light etc.. Otherwise they are simply useless.

I would do the same, I can understand someone wanting to protect their product but if the only way they can do it is by restricting the use of the purchaser I am really not interested and that goes for any product, not just shaders.

dito hornet3D.

I think the fact that your asking means YOU feel bad about it !!

don't really matter if its illegal or ill moral  ..... a"crook" lol wont care but if you do then don't do it

Thanks

True it might already be in the public domain.

What the lights appear to (my guess) is calculating the distance to nearby objects and prevent Point light blow out if close to say a ceiling, yet lighting the room below. Again that ias a wild ass guess on my part

If it's doing what you think, BB might even be the source of the shader. Have a look at: http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/?thread_id=2868367&page_number=2

There is a problem with the inverse square falloff, if things are too close too the light the intensity is too high. BB did adress that with an addition to the wall shaders, or with a light shader. The thread linked should contain the needed information.

I'm with bantha, and I recall BB had a far better solution in the end: light absorbing paint on walls and ceilings, instead of on the lights.

The point is: point/spot light can have inverse linear or inverse square attenuation. At a distance of 1 PNU from those lights, all attenuations produce the same intensity. At longer distances the intensities of linear and square do fall off, at shorter distances they ramp up. The extreme intensities that this can make, can produce intense artefacts in IDL lit scenes.

My personal guess is, that vendor took the solution from this forum, instead of the other way around.  

As I see it, a Poser shader is a recipe, and while recipe books can be copyrighted, individual recipes are not subject to copyright, at least in the US...

That's a difficult subject, WandW. Poser shaders can be seen as a program, which could be copyrighted if it's not too simple for that. I assume, for example, that BB's skin shader is complicated enough to qualify as a program which could be copyrighted. 

But we surely have a grey area here.

I don't see how shaders can be seen as a program. A program is a series of coded instructions for the automatic performance of a particular task. Shader nodes are the result of a program and by extension, the shader itself is a result of said program. The program and the result are related, but not the same. Matmatic is a program, poser is a program, shader nodes are tools within the program. A shader therefore is more akin to a recipe than a program.

Every program is like a recipe. Any program needs to be compiled or transfered into something executable, and thus is the result of that program. Are Python scripts diffenent? If yes, why?

A python scrypt outlines a series of procedures executed in logical steps, while a shader is a list of Poser settings...

@Bantha, do you do any programming?

a shader is made from a bunch of nodes, WandW is correct in her assessment. No program I have ever written (and I have written a lot) is a recipe for anything. It logically states how to perform a given task. There is no logic in nodes, you simply plug them in using your own (or someone elses) idea of what they will / should produce.

If your argument is that programs are compiled, then you are incorrectly calling a shader a program, since shaders are not compiled. if they were, you would not be able to see how they were made by examining the nodes. the shader simply gives a graphic representation of a given material (real or imagined)

scatter-<--HSV is not really the same as

hsv.ConnectToInput(scatter.Input(5))

I see here a another problem too. Most of us, or at last me for sure, have our Shader knowledge from BB  SG, and a few others.

I collect shaders, Tutorials from BB where ever I see them. I study them,try to rebuild them,  and when I understand how they work, I use the basics for my own stuff. Modified for sure, but the basic is not my work. How can I put here a copyright? This would be the same if somebody would use one of my OBJ files, modified it and put a copyright on it.

I agree that collect shaders together and sell them after almost 1:1 is shameless, but when you use shaders for your product, which was in the Public domain and you modify it for your own need, or you learn it hard from tutorials by your own, there is nothing morally wrong.

You don't need to "put a copyright" on your work. As fas as I understand it (I'm from Germany, European laws are different from U.S. laws and IANAL) you don't need to do anything, If you write a text, create an image, write a program it's automatically protected if it's unique enough. So, no copyright for "Good Morning, everyone", but lengthy articles can qualify. But even if you have a copyright on your text, someone else may write a text which gives the same informations just with his own words, without violating your copyright.

With software (yes, I do code, started programming on a TRS-80 some aeons ago) it's the same. If there isn' a patented algorithm you may recreate any program you encounter, proved by the countless "Flappy Bird" clones in every App Store. If you see a shader and rebuild it you would not break any copyrights, IMHO. If you find a shader which basically consists of five nodes and a couple of values inside, then I would assume you are save to use it, since it's more a "Good Morning" instead of a work which qualifies for a copyright.

But look at things like BB's skin shaders, like his procedural chain mail. Those are complicated enough to qualify. Still, you may recreate the shader from scratch, but I don't see how a mathmatic source code differs from a python source code, and why complicated shaders with many, many nodes shouldn't be copyrightable.

There are copyrighted shaders for Blender's cycles, (see this link ) which to my knowledge aren't much different - just a (big) bunch of nodes. But since the shop puts a regular licence on it, I assume that they think that the shader is copyrighted.

For my understanding, it does not change much if you use source code or building blocks like nodes to generate a function, a program. And I fail to see what makes shaders different. Most of them are just far too simple to qualify for copyright, IMHO.

I am not a lawyer, probably I missed some important point. 

Posers functionality comes from the manipulation of various "in program" parameters, sliders, node connections, etc.

User created "presets" cannot be copyrighted because of themselves they have no artistic merit and are intangible.  In order to "see" a pose, shader, light setup etc an image has to be rendered.  When the image is rendered then the image can be copyrighted.  A "preset" satisfies the definition of a process.  If the creator of a process requires legal protection then the process is Patented.  The creator of an in program preset in Poser would not be able to get a Patent because that is already owned by Smith Micro.  In the case of a shader if it is created procedurally solely using the in program functions then it can't be copyrighted, but if external images are pluged into texture slots then the external images may be copyrightable. A vendor who creates "presets" has the right to sell their work because the end result of their work is that a purchaser will beneift from the time saved in not having to do it them selves either due to inabiltiy or lack of understanding of the program or just simply lack of time, but they cannot in the end "own" a preset.

@grichter - If the material node setup you are refering to contains only in program node connections and does not reference any external files then there is nothing illegal about disclosing the setup.  If your gut feeling is that by doing so would be wrong somehow then that is a moral/ethical decision.  In that case go with your gut.

I am not a lawyer.

BB shader is a greyzone I think. As example his floor shader. He had a thread for his floor shader. With mat.formulas etc. This shader I build from scratch in his Matmatic script.

Is this now my shader or BB?

The other hand, we have X- math.formulas where we can build great scripts, nodes etc..what If all the people who find out those formulas would copyright them? We would still stick with primitive tools and sit on trees.

Keppel, so sharing bought Pose sets would be OK? Somehow I doubt that.

Ladonna, if you used BB's mathmatic script to generate the shader, you did not make the shader "from scratch". You just used the source code. 

You cannot copyright formulas, that would need a patent. But you should write your own source code if you want to avoid copyright problems, generally speaking.

Ladonna, if you used BB's mathmatic script to generate the shader, you did not make the shader "from scratch". You just used the source code. 

You cannot copyright formulas, that would need a patent. But you should write your own source code if you want to avoid copyright problems, generally speaking.

I doubt very much that any court, anywhere, would uphold a copyright claim on a shader generated from code. If that was the case, any document created in a word processor, spreadsheet etc would also fall into your "you just used the source code category." and therefore, any document created inside it would be the property of the original source code owner, eg. Microsoft.   How many people can code a word processor from scratch?

Hmmm. Everybody should know the term reductio ad absurdum before trying to work this out.

I'm going to write a generic statement with some placeholders - then we'll substitute real words, and see if it holds up, and in which direction.

Generic Statement

[Assembled Elements] are not copyrightable. They are made of [elements] that come from a finite set. These are provided to you - they exist already and you're just picking which [elements] to use. The combinations you come up with don't make it innovative or unique or worthy of protection.

Testing its validity - how do you feel about each of these - and if different, why?

[Poser Render Settings] are not copyrightable. They are made of [numbers] that come from a finite set. These are provided to you - they exist already and you're just picking which [numbers] to use. The combinations you come up with don't make it innovative or unique or worthy of protection.

[Poser Shaders ] are not copyrightable. They are made of [nodes] that come from a finite set. These are provided to you - they exist already and you're just picking which [nodes] to use. The combinations you come up with don't make it innovative or unique or worthy of protection.

[Compiled Python scripts] are not copyrightable. They are made of [byte codes] that come from a finite set. These are provided to you - they exist already and you're just picking which [byte codes] to use. The combinations you come up with don't make it innovative or worthy of protection.

[Windows applications] are not copyrightable. They are made of [Intel Pentium op codes] that come from a finite set. These are provided to you - they exist already and you're just picking which [Intel Pentium op codes] to use. The combinations you come up with don't make it innovative or unique or worthy of protection.

[Novels] are not copyrightable. They are made of [English words] that come from a finite set. These are provided to you - they exist already and you're just picking which [words] to use. The combinations you come up with don't make it innovative or unique or worthy of protection.

• P.S. The uneven spacing between paragraphs is not my doing. I tried to make them the same but the damn editor kept deciding on its own where to place a blank line.

Hint: (and my opinion)

When you have no control over the number or order of elements applied - you just decide parametric values used with those elements - is it copyrightable? No. Parameter settings for an application or machine (such as an oven's start and end time, and the tempurature) are not copyrightable.

When you have control over the number or order of things applied, and they are applied in great numbers with carefully chosen and exacting precision, is it copyrightable? Yes. Shaders are copyrightable. Whether written as code that calls built-in functions, or assembled from nodes that call those exact same functions doesn't change the nature of the task - to construct an assemblage that performs a specific task.

There is still an open question (IMO) regarding whether the underlying algorithm is protected. If it is, it would be by patent, not copyright. But that isn't the whole task of creativity and certainly I have proven often enough that while others can describe the algorithm they want to do in a shader, I or just a couple other people were the only ones who could show how to do it through a carefully chosen set of nodes and their connections. (Example - how to rotate a 2D image in a Poser shader. How to rotate bricks. Etc. The algorithm is no secret. The shader that implemented that algorithm was novel and was beyond the abilities of 99% of Poser users, even though the pieces are all there for all of us.)

"When I can not edit a shader , i will put it right away in the garbage. Shader locking that you have to take them" right they come" are worst. I need to edit shaders for my scene , light etc.. Otherwise they are simply useless"

I personally dont mind a "locked" shader

if it is being given away FREE with no restrictions on use in Commercial projects

http://www.vraymaterials.co.uk/products/vray-materials/

This Thread is however, a very interesting discussion.

Bantha, I would never misuse the generosity from People like BB, SG, Artbee and others.. Each time I used one of BB( modified) shaders in one of my products, I ask him for permission.

And this is the point, BB use his precious time to teach us how the Material room works in Poser, write Tutorials, make example shaders for study and learn them and some pick it up , modify it and claim it as its own. This I would call shameless.

And Structure is correct.

Note- In the license with matmatic, I explicitly state what copyrights I retain, and what I convey to you. For the most part what I care about is disallowing profit from copies of things I've published for free. (Scripts, shaders) All I require is that you can't charge for what I've given freely. You can charge for a prop or figure with the shader included (in whatever form) even though I originally wrote that shader. (in whatever form) By whatever form, I mean as a matmatic script or as a Poser mt5 or mc6 file, or as a screen shot.

This also applies to anything I've placed in a forum thread.

It does not apply to things I sell in my store, or to things I post on my web site, unless otherwise noted in the license agreements for whatever that is.

Occasionally I give up copyright. For example, parmatic is in the public domain.

Matmatic is not public domain and is protected by copyright. I give others the right to reproduce and distribute free copies of matmatic itself, so long as it is unaltered.

I also have stated in the matmatic docs:

Matmatic generates Poser material files.

• Unless a material file is produced from a licensed script (mine or 3rd party), you have the right to do anything you want with the generated Poser material files. Sell them, give them away, they are your files. You may include them in Poser add-on packages, figures, props, scenes etc.
• The materials produced directly from the scripts included with Matmatic (my scripts) are unlicensed. They belong to everybody and are free for commercial or non-commercial use. You may include them as parts of a Poser add-on package, figure, prop, etc. You can even sell them, on the basis that you put in the effort to install and run Matmatic for them.
• If you produce a material file from a licensed (mine or 3rd party) script, then the holder of that license will determine what you can do with the resulting files.

Note in that is implicit the notion that I believe a script has even more to it than copyright. I think I not only decide whether or not you can copy the script, but also how you can use that script and how you can use the output of that script. I don't think I'm wrong in saying that you are licensing (yah for free, but still) the right to use my script.

Thanks BB for this clarifying. My English is not good enough to explain like you, but this is what I had exact in mind.

Hi the key Phrase in all of your examples is this:

" The combinations you come up with don't make it innovative or unique or worthy of protection."

the question of weather something is "unique or worthy of protection"

Speaks to the very heart this concept in western civilization

called:"Intellectual property"

Sometimes the answer to this question is clearcut & fairly obvious to even the casual
 layperson and many times it is a matter decided by the SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS of judges&juries 

See the recent lawsuit over the Robin thicke/Ferell vs.the Marvin Gaye estate.

BTW. the latin term " reductio ad absurdum"

is the logical Fallacy of reducing your opponents argument to ridiculous proportions and criticizing that highly unlikely result.

Although similar in approach, the copyrighting and patenting of software protect different IP aspects. Copyright protection is only provided to expressions and exempt to ideas, procedures or operational/computing methods, whereas patents may cover ideas, procedures and operational methods. However, a software patent's cost and enforcement may be higher, depending on the complexity of the patent's requirements. Again, like other patent categories, software patents also need to be applied according to country or region.

U.S. patent law does not permit patents that involve abstract ideas. This restriction has been used to deny software patents. In the European Union (EU), software applications, as a whole, are excluded from patent restrictions.

http://www.techopedia.com/definition/22199/software-pa

Baggins Wrote:
"There isn't anything that anybody can make that I don't know how to make. It's never happened - ever."

Sorry Baggins, I don't believe a word of it, cause if that were so I think you would have made an Anamorphic plugin for Poser by now :-P
If you won't do it for me, do it for Poser, it would be cool cause there's actually only a handfull of renderers out there with the feature.

I was speaking to the Octane developers the other week, I complained about how absurd it was to have a digital lens that can't even mimic something as basic as a vertical stretch, and just like that, within a few hours he'd added Anamorphic rendering to Octane :-D

Just saying (and teasing).

Hah! I meant for poser. It may be that something cannot be done in poser, such as anisotropic reflections, in which case my statement does not apply. What I meant was if it can be done in Poser, I can do it.

I remember your thread on the topic of anamorphic bokeh. (F'ing autocorrect would not let me type that word so now I will say blurred    background .) At the time I was on a business trip away from poser so I forgot to look into it when I returned. Guess where I am right now? Same hotel. Hahaahaahah.

Hmmm. I am pretty sure I can design an anamorphic lens for Poser, but not at all sure that Poser's way of doing focal blur would produce what you want .

To the question am I worried or concerned about posting the material room nodes of a commercial product, the answer is yes or I would not have created the thread in the first place.

The link provided to the discussion by BB, the node layout in the purchased product is slightly different (a touch more complex) then what BB explains and shows, But using BB's valuable data  and the idiot that I am, can now screw it up my renders even more then I have in the past :)

Thanks everybody

@Baggins
Yup, I can just picture you now, relaxing in some fancy hotel with a pretty maid tending to your every need.
Girls in Wickedweasel bikinis beside the pool, serving you cocktails!

You can't tell me that's more attractive to you than starting work on BB_Anamorphic :-D

Anyway, from my limited understanding of the Poser Material Nodes, and zero understanding of Poser Python, I get the feeling it can be done but it would not be ideal.  I sort of know from stuff you've shown before, that Anamorphic lens flares can be done using the material nodes.  But to be honest, I'm personally not that bothered about the flares, it's the vertically stretched Anamorphic blur I'm after.

To do that, I get the feeling it would have to be done using Poser Python.  Unfortunately, we can't stretch the virtual film plane, and it's a shame because I think that would be the easiest and best way to do it if it could be done.  What can be done, though (just guessing), is a little math in a script which basically stretches every object in the scene, but most important, the stretch of all objects is always on the camera plane axis.  Like I said, just guessing, but I reckon that might at least be possible.

BTW, here's the thread if you're curious, see how the Octane dev went about it, and knowing you and your nodes, you might be able to do the same thing with the Poser Material Nodes.  You'll notice the Octane dev was confused about Anamorphics at first, but after another explanation, he came good.  I was surprised to see him implement it in the way he did, in fact I didn't think it would work at first, but then a member posted a test which shows that it does!

So there's at least three ways to implement it, I'm just not sure Poser has the suitable 'probes' for you to get at such things.  But anyway, I'm drailing your thread here so I'll leave you with the thought of "BB_Anamorphic" - it would be cool so hope you have a go at it :-)

Get the maid to bring you another cocktail, then have a nice relaxing read of the thread.
Click Here for Octane Anamorphic thread (it's only three short pages).

Cool, pumeco.

Yup, Anamorphic is very cool, but between you and me, I think Baggins hotel thingummy was his polite way of saying 'Piss off, I ain't doing it!' :-P