I have just been going through the new additions to the Renderosity store, and I was surprised to find that two of the items (Yazoo&Yoda and Yuma, both by StefyZZ) have additional clauses to their licenses. One of the clauses, that a person posting an image using the textures to the gallery must be the same username who bought the textures from the store, makes sense to me. I assume it's an anti-piracy measure. But the second clause bothers me. It says that when any image is posted to the gallery using one of these textures, explicit credit must be given to StefyZZ. This bugs me because a lot more goes into making a good image than just the texture used on the figure. In my case, I often use versions of bought textures that I have modified quite a lot, so they aren't the same as the originals, and postwork changes things even more. Giving the person who made a texture or an item credit is a nice thing to do, but I don't like being forced to do it. Especially with a product that I have paid money for. This restriction bothered me enough that after reading the clause, I took Yazoo&Yoda and Yuma out of my cart. I love Stefy's textures, but I won't purchase either of her new packages because of the license addendums. Does this bother anyone else, or is it just me? -nemo

Im afraid I agree with you. Granted, a great deal of work goes into creating a product, but if one is putting it up for sale, then one should understand that its now a product. To insist on credit in perpetuity is like having to announce upon arrival at a business meeting: "oh, incidently, Im contractually bound to announce I arrived here in a Toyota".

"One of the clauses, that a person posting an image using the textures to the gallery must be the same username who bought the textures from the store" - well considering i have gotten spam mail from vendors cause i was idiot enough to use my real email addy- i can understand how someone would want to buy with another user name and addy.. but thaat is just me. I always wondered (and this is probably NOT the place to ask but i tend to ramble...) How would i buy something for a freind- like a bday present- i want to put it on my card but have them dl it? (did i miss another meeting?) "It says that when any image is posted to the gallery using one of these textures, explicit credit must be given..." "Giving the person who made a texture or an item credit is a nice thing to do, but I don't like being forced to do it. Especially with a product that I have paid money for." um do you get paid for advertising for them? i have to agree there- i purchased the item. i shouldnt have to advertise for them as well. now if you WANT to, then that is your decision, but i feel this way- i bought the item- they got my money- that is credit enough. I have literally wiped stuff i have paid for from my hard drive because of that clause. Then to get more complicated- what if you are a graphics person, you use a texture or a prop cause you dont have time nor patience to do that oyourself? i know in the line of work i do- the designer NEVER gets to sign their work... so how would that work... sorry if i am rambling- it's late- thx for the heads up. it's not just you

I have to agree.. As a vendor myself while it is nice to see.. such and such made by Stormrage I would never demand that someone do that. It's enough for me to see someone using my items.. or even that they are buying them. When you buy something it Should not carry a license addendum like that. I can understand a term like that in freestuff not in a store. Storm

I was just going to post about this myself. I really love Steffy's textures but with those clauses I will not be purchasing them. I usually do give credit but I don't like being forced to especially when I've paid for it. I don't give credit to Microsoft every time I use Word to print out a document either. To bad... they are beautiful textures.

is it just SteffyZZ adding clauses?

???? I can understand a restriction like this on free stuff, but as has been stated here, a paying customer should not be forced to advertise for a product. One of the reasons people buy things is to be free of having to give credit in perpetuity. These texture packages are already at the high end of the price spectrum (and they do look like they are worth it), so it is not like customers are getting a price break in exchange for free advertising. And why is the stipulation ONLY for images posted on Renderosity? What if someone posts a gallery image on Renderotica or 3D Commune? Does credit have to be given then? I can sort of understand the user name/purchaser restriction, but then again, many members post under several user names and they buy the license to the product as a person, not as a user name. (And again, is this only enforced on Renderosity?) And what if they are forced to change their user name for some reason? It happens quite often around here. Is their license invalid then?

Renderosity only probably because that's where she got the most hits previously... Because the additional clauses are stated beforehand, I think it's valid to have them... it's up to the buyer whether or not to buy. And up to ones with more initiative to approach her on her price to drop that clause, if they really want to do that... And what if they are forced to change their user name for some reason? It happens quite often around here. Is their license invalid then? Yeah, good question... and how does one enforce this anyway!

Just checked that out, cuz I couldn't believe it. requiring credits be listed seems a little to much. Think on this: what if everyone added that little clause? we'll spend more time keeping track of what came from where and which items are shown in the images than is worth it. Especially after paying for something.

It doesn't make any sense to me either, but I don't think I can be misunderstanding or misinterpreting them. Here are the exact sentences added to the license: "1.The Buyer that purchase this product have to give credit to the Artist when he posts images on the Renderosity Gallery. 2.The Buyer that purchase this product have to use the same name he/she have used to purchase the Product when he/she uploads images that contain the product to the Renderosity Galleries."

Here's an exapmle of the remarks section using this rule: Vicky figure by Daz Vicky texture "Odessy" by Snow Sultan Vicky hair by Yamoto Vicky hair texture by Kazoburo Vicky's Dress by sergemarck Dress texture by Gloria Gast This just covers a small part of an image. What if Mike is also in the image, and he's dressed too. What about the props? Go look at some of the images in the galleries and count up the items in them. Here I am contemplating buying a few high quaility textures, and now I see this? I'll grant that Steffy's textures are very good, but I'm very absent-minded to begin with and don't post to the galleries often, what happens if I forget, will I be banned for 'rosity for it?

what if we had to advertise for everyone like this, imagine a sign around your neck, "today I am wearing slim fitting jeans, created by Guess, purchased at JcPenny for a very special price. my lovely sweater is from Sears, made by Levi's, it was a little costly, but well worth every penny and the scent you smell is my favorite perfume, from Abercrombie and Fitch, and lets not forget the Victoria's secret bra I'm wearing purchased special from Victoria's Secret, on sale for 19.99, you can't beat that deal"

I like StefyZZ's work very much. As soon as I saw the new textures I knew I would have to put them at the top of my "to buy" list. I personally would not mind the restrictions, I usually give credit for items I like where I can remember who to credit. :-) As far as licensing to a username, I only use one, so it wouldn't effect me directly. However, looking past the issue of whether I could "live with" those conditions, I have to admit I really don't like the example it sets. As an issue of fairness, I also tend to bristle at the restrictions. It doesn't seem fair that such restrictions should be imposed on someone who is paying for the product and I also agree that being Renderosity gallery specific adds to the feeling of being "unfair". The implication seems to be that a number of people posting to the Galleries here are using pirated items and that this is a problem specific to renderosity? I can understand the frustration of seeing a texture you worked hard on and sell online showing up in gallery images of people you feel might not have paid for it. However, I have a feeling that the reaction of many here to the new licensing restrictions is going to turn off a lot of "honest" users who would have bought otherwise, while doing little to prevent piracy. I hope StefyZZ will decide to remove those new restrictions, not only because it doesn't seem fair, but because the headaches and loss of sales the controversy will cause far outweigh any perceived benefits.

I thought people usually got paid to do product endorsment, while we're at it I guess we should give every employee of Curious Lab, Metacreations, and everyong else that has worked on Poser throughout the years credit, because these renders wouldn't be possible without their work either. Is their any Renderosity staff, or merchants that are involved that would care to comment before this becomes a long string of really pissed off posts?

shadowcat - I didn't say I had panties on (looking in mirror) how did you know I had that branded there.. hehehehe

Not so funny for me, I kinda did that with my freebies already, haha... ok, funnee. :D I IM'd Stefy about this thread in case she'd care to reply... There's no need to get pissed off. We can get through this, let's communicate, peace out. ;)

First, excuse me for my not good english, and then I'm very sorry if I have disturbed you with the additional licence I've added to my last products, but that absolutely was not my intention. Indeed, I've decided to add it 'cause I was very tired to see images with my "warez products" posted here in the Renderosity Gallery from "warez members". And some of them have also provided me the url where to find my warez products... This is the only reason why I've added this additional license that is referred only to the Renderosity Galleries and not for anything else to my last products. There are absolutely no restrictions for commercial use or for anything else like usual. So I'm very sorry if I've hurt someone, and believe me, I should have never thought that I should have hurt someone!! And that's why I will remove that additional license ASAP. Many apologizes for this. Sincerely, Stefy.

two thumbs up, Stefy :)

Thanks Stefy. Good thing this thread started kinda late at night, because I'm sure it would have snowballed. :-) I hate that people would pirate software of any type, but it seems to be even worse when they rip off individuals who aren't big corporations. Members here skilled at making products people are willing to pay for deserve to get paid by everyone who uses their products. I would hope that any artists posting in the galleries here would have enough respect for their fellow members who work hard making those items, that they would never use pirated items in their works. I have to say that I am surprised and disappointed that any one would be blatantly "warezing" your products. I really do understand the frustration, but trying to fight piracy is often more trouble than it's worth. Look at Microsoft. They spent millions to come up with the activation system for WindowsXP to prevent piracy, but with XP not even in stores yet, news is that Warez groups have already hacked the activation system and have made it available online! Anyone out there using warezed versions of Stefy's products, or any other products sold here, should be ashamed of themselves. Even if you see nothing wrong with stealing from multi-billion dollar software companies, ripping off individual artists here who work hard and deserve every penny they make is just plain disgusting...

Let us know when the restrictions are removed and I will be happy to place an order :)

Glad to hear that StefyZZ and I do sympathize with the warez problem. It's a shame that so many good artist are getting hit by these warez people, both merchants and those who have posted freebies whose parts have been pirated for sale items. Ideally community members would give a heads up to the artists as soon as something fishy is spotted, unfortunetly it seems this doesn't happen often or soon enough before some serious damage is done. Maybe things will be better in the future.....

Thank you, Stefy... I think it was very generous of you to reconsider on the new licensing restrictions. -nemo

This is why i don't buy pre-done characters. I do undertand the one restriction and in truth it does make sence. since i"ve started selling stuff I have yet to see 1/3 of the ppl that bought any of mine to use any of them. and a search of the gallery of...turns up nada. but the other part, nope don't fly.

Cool, I wish I could offer up for Steffy some solution concerning the Warez problem she (and others) are having. But the new restrictions just struck me as the wrong way to go with this. (not starting it up again, just clarifying) About the only way to stop warez is to catch them, but because it is the internet nobody knows anyones name. The only thing I can think of would be impractical, but I'll share the idea anyway. What if every texture sold were "watermarked" with a number hidden somewhere in the margins, that way if the texture were found at a website it could be tracked to the person who purhased it? Unfortunately this would mean every download would have to be personalized. As I said impractical.

Im afraid I dont understand the problem with eliminating these "warez" sites. If one is trafficking in stolen goods, then one is just as culpable as the theif himself. If someone puts up a "warez" site, then he/she is just as guilty as if he/she had stolen the software him/herself. Granted, with the server software out there, its like killing cockroaches in a New York brownstone: they reemerge somewhere eventually. Still, those servers must be registered, and registration means a name. Am I being too simplistic about this?

It is possible to digitally watermark a picture from within Photoshop, and you pay for the priveledge, too. However, i wonder how detectable it would be in a 3D render? Does anyone know? i'm sorry that it was copyright violation/warezing that prompted the special restrictions, as they may have hurt first-day sales significantly--and the warez guyz not at all. i suppose we have to just keep turning the wretches in to the authorities whenever we find them! My sympathies are with you, Stefy. --Nan who is an artist who likes to get paid, too

Thanks, Stefy. Those restrictions, while understandable, just didn't seem practical. I sympathize with your plight. As an artist who sells her work and as the owner of an online store, I know all too well about the warez problem. It's getting worse all the time and don't think that the members of this, or any other community, are better or worse about it than anyone else. Although I have to really take umbrage at the idea that it is somehow "worse" to steal from an individual artist than it is from a corporation. Corporations have to pay their bills just like anyone else AND they have employees that they are responsible to. Those employees aren't faceless numbers. They are real people with real families to feed. Steal from a corporation and you are stealing from them. Not to mention jacking up the prices for legitimate users who have to pay more to cover the costs of theft.

nfredman the watermark would not be visible in a render, only to be seen on the textures .jpg. For example, if each purchase had it's own number hidden somewhere in the margins, and that texture is found at a warez site, a person can then find that number and place it with the purchaser. Bingo we identified a thief.

DTHUREGRIF, Just to be clear, I was not supporting the notion that stealing from corporations is o.k. However, I understand the mentality of many of the Warez people. THEY feel that they are somehow justified ripping off multi-million or multi-billion dollar companies. For those who internally justify their warez activities with such a mind set, I think it is worth pointing out that their own reasoning falls apart in a case like this. They aren't robbing some big, faceless corporation, but individual artists who most definitely deserve every penny they make. It's a distinction that may not matter to you, but if it matters to some warez traders who feel they follow some self-justified code of honor, then it's a distinction that should be made. I hope that makes my comments more clear. :)

Shadowcat, I don't know if they are still in business, but I think Digimark (or Digimarc?) offered a service like that. It was server software that somehow could dynamically insert a hidden watermark that would be keyed to the user i.d. of the person downloading it, I believe. I think most potential customers found it either impracticle or to expensive, so it may not be a viable solution. If such a solution is available, then maybe Renderosity could just use it on a few, high potential items (to cut cost vs. using it on every item), with out announcing which items. Then, your plan comes into play, monitor the web looking for the item to pop up as Warez, check the i.d., then take action against the offender. Of course, now that I think about it, there would be a number of ways around this system, which I won't share to give anyone ideas, but even this probably wouldn't work to well. I really do think any member here warezing these items should be very ashamed of themselves. The same "code of honor" that prevents most warezers from inserting virii into items they make available usually also calls for them not to pirate from individual programmers or artists. It's always hard to imagine "honor among thieves", but even among many of their peers, anyone ripping off artists here would be considered to have zero honor.

I already thought that it would be impractical, but from what you say is less so. If they did do this secretly, they could very well wipe a few of the offenders out, maybe sue the thievies to recoop some losses. It would be hard of warez people to avoid this type of thing if they don't know what they are looking for in the first place.

Hey, I did a simple search and found this: http://www.cat-soft.com/warez.htm a place to report thievery and piracy... Or did you already do this? I don't know justy trying to help.