I was recommended a freebie after an order. It looked great but it says non-commercial use only. Is it okay to ask why? Or to see what the artist meant by non-commercial. I want to make sure if I render something with it, I will not get into trouble if used in a contest or a commercial render.

It may be labeled that way so Renderosity will not use it in advertising. Feel free to reach out to the vendor directly for any needed permissions.

It could be because it is "fan art" as well to avoid any issues with the copyright...

It usually means you can't use it in any render that you get paid for doing.

wheatpenny posted at 9:16AM Sat, 05 January 2019 - #4343103

It usually means you can't use it in any render that you get paid for doing.

That's what it should mean, but some people use it when they mean it is not for redistribution as a 3D model and/or not to be used in the creation of new 3d content for distribution. As CHMedia says, if it's not clear from the read-me or equivalent then ask the maker - but if you can't get clarification you probably have to take it at face value, meaning no commercial use of renders.

if I get an offer of a freebee after buying an item. and said freebee is obviously made to be compatible with the bought item or even to complete an outfit, this non-commercial is absolutely irritating. In that case, I would prefer not to get the offer. Or get a hint in said offer, would spare me the time to look after stuff I can't use. Most annoying were some dwarfs, whose outfits could be bought and used commercially, but the dwarf shape itself, which was absolutely needed (as I definitely wanted to render dwarfs), was a non-commercial freebee. So, all that lovely stuff was completely useless to me.

'Non commercial use' is also the default setting when uploading a freebie - if you're uploading and click through, you might miss giving commercial permission.

If it is something that might be trademarked / copyrighted, then it would make sense for no commercial use to be allowed. If the creator simply wants to keep it for personal / fun use, that's their prerogative.

But if it's something that's supporting a commercial product, it's probably worth asking for clarification. (Or maybe Rendo could clarify with a little note in the upload section.

Is there no readme with the download? license use is often spelled out more clearly in those (but not always)

if it is something stating non-commercial, I try to stay away from that as far as possible, as I use everything I buy commercially (book covers). The one time I asked the PA AND got contact, the answer was ... useless. No definite yes, no definite no.

My Freestuff has some items that are based on stuff owned by other interests. I have many Dalek models, for example. Daleks are the property of BBC Worldwide and the Estate of Terry Nation. The BBC has very strict rules about using likenesses of their stuff; basically, you can't. They do, however, usually turn a blind eye to fan art, anything done for personal use and any other non-commercial use so long as it doesn't bring their name or properties into disrepute. That last bit is worth noting because, even with a proper licensing agreement, they get upset if their characters are shown out of context. They had an advert pulled because it featured Daleks being nice, and a tv show had to remove Daleks from several scenes because they were acting out of character.

So, I offer things like my Dalek freebies on the understanding that they won't be used for advertising, sales, marketing, or any other use that isn't going to upset the BBC. If it did, they'd go after the creator of the image and they could, in all probability, make me remove all my Dalek related content. In such a situation, we all lose out. Not ideal.

Some companies do not allow any unauthorized use at all, not even fan art or personal use. The most notorious in this case is Disney, and they have a bunch of very trigger happy lawyers who will jump up and down on anyone they catch using Disney stuff without permission.

Then again, I have a few things that allow commercial and non-commercial use. I personally find it distasteful that someone would make money from an image created out of free resources but that's something I leave to their conscience.

As an aside, I allow redistribution of my Freestuff, so long as it's redistributed intact, and never to become part of a paid for collection, or that there's a fee for use, download or whatever. I do not allow anyone to take credit for my work but - as with so many things - I have no real way of enforcing it. I'd be hacked off if I found someone passing off my stuff as theirs, or making a kitbashed model with my items and passing them off as all their own work. I'd do my best to name and shame 'em, for all the good it would do.

The Mouse is notorious for those types of things. What's funny is when they try to claim copyright infringements for copyrights they don't own. Regrettably the guy with the biggest legal budget usually wins, but quite a bit of Disney material originated from works in the Public Domain. Like Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella... So actually unless you are using an element of the movie itself, assuming you have the means to fight them in court, you can beat them. As in: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/wizard-of-oz-disney-warner-bros-289305

carlablackstream posted at 1:08AM Thu, 31 January 2019 - #4343513

if it is something stating non-commercial, I try to stay away from that as far as possible, as I use everything I buy commercially (book covers). The one time I asked the PA AND got contact, the answer was ... useless. No definite yes, no definite no.

Bought items are a different matter. At Rendo there are clear requirements in the submission criteria that all licensing rights and/or restrictions must be stated in the Readme. All Readmes are available for every product without having to buy first, so you don't get any nasty surprises after the fact. |'m not aware of any paid for product here that doesn't allow commercial use but other sites -DAZ, for example - have had such restrictions.

These freebees which I find ... strange are things intended to be used with bought commercial products, which compliment said bought products, or, in one case, are the foundation without which you can't use the commercial, bought product. If these freebees are declared non commercial, they are useless. At least for me. Books by their very nature are commercial, so the covers are as well.

For me anything with the non-commercial tag I avoid like the plague, since most of my renders are for commercial use in comics..

I just found this thread, and it's been a surprise to me. I recently uploaded some Bryce freebies as "non-commercial" and got complaints from the forums over at DAZ3D (word got around) saying that they wouldn't be able to use the items in a render competition being run over there. I couldn't understand it, but looking at the comments above, I can now.

When I started with Bryce3D in the 1990s, my understanding, and the general understanding in forums I used then, was that the non-commercial tag meant that the components being sold (meshes, textures, poses, sky or lighting rigs, etc.) remained the property of the seller and could not themselves be sold on, or re-distributed in any other way, but that images, animations or image derivatives (patterns, logos, etc.) made using the components were the work of the buyer, and were the buyer's to sell or distribute, as long as there was no way of extracting the original components from the item being sold. From this thread it seems as if the general understanding is changing now - although I see that Rendo is still crediting gallery image copyright to the image maker, not to the maker(s) of the components used.

Maybe we need a clarification of this from Rendo and other sites involved? The TOS and copyright policy pages aren't helpful (as far as my patience in reading went, anyway).

My reason for using the non-commercial tag on the freebies was that I couldn't trace the provenance for two flower pictures I'd used years ago to make Bryce MATs. They were 90% likely to have been from some of my old photos, but I didn't want to risk distributing anything that I couldn't prove was mine along with permission to sell it on, which could put the receiver at risk as well.

Copyright law seems far more complicated now - and certainly more aggressive - and if good-faith community activities like competitions and freebies aren't going end up being stifled, I think it's important that we have a clear and simple definition of what "commercial" and "non-commercial" tags mean in terms of images, animations, etc. created from the products that we buy, sell or give away. So I've put the gist of this post in an email and sent it to copyright@renderosity.com, asking if they can respond. I'll let you know if I get a reply.

I've also got a couple of potential freebies (3D models) that were inspired by games, but are sitting on disk because I'm too scared to upload them for fear of infringement. I may change them to look less recognisable and upload them anyway, but I wouldn't feel happy about labeling these as commercial either, as it's still potentially passing on a risk.

the image copyright will always belong to the creator of the image, not the owner of the assets used in the image.

Some of my things says "non commercuial" - some does not. Some are so old that they simply default to the new Non Commercial setting.

It all my later things, I specifically state in the readme that commercial RENDERINGS are ok, but that the item itself cannot be sold or shared.

I think most freebie creators are fine with commercial RENDERINGS of their stuff - the "non commercial" is usually just a "Don't sell this item" thingie.

Except of course when, as in SamTherapy's example, it's because others own the actual copyrights.

SamTherapy covers this very well in his comment above. As far as 3D content goes, If it is a work that is a derivative of another work, such as movies, TV, another artist or a book, it CANNOT be used for any commercial work. Period. That means any 3D content for sale based on a movie or game, or whatnot is a violation of copyright. It also means artwork made with those assets and likenesses cannot be sold or used for any commercial purpose. The only way around this is to acquire a license from the license holder. A non commercial license means fan art can be created, but it cannot be sold.

Quoting from Sam's informative post above, "Some companies do not allow any unauthorized use at all, not even fan art or personal use. The most notorious in this case is Disney, and they have a bunch of very trigger happy lawyers who will jump up and down on anyone they catch using Disney stuff without permission."

So, I'm assuming all the free Star Wars related items - like the 2 versions of BB8 I have - would fall under the scrutiny of Micky's legal hellhounds? Hopefully they turn a blind eye to 'fan art' as well... Otherwise I'd have to remove my image of the Deathstar about to toast Kim Song Un... LOL

It's also worth noting that the Tolkien estate keeps a pretty close eye out as well. They're not nearly as vicious as Disney, but they have been known to send out cease and desist orders. I bet Peter Jackson had to pay a pretty penny to license LOTR and Hobbit..

RodS posted at 4:45AM Mon, 25 March 2019 - #4348264

Quoting from Sam's informative post above, "Some companies do not allow any unauthorized use at all, not even fan art or personal use. The most notorious in this case is Disney, and they have a bunch of very trigger happy lawyers who will jump up and down on anyone they catch using Disney stuff without permission."

So, I'm assuming all the free Star Wars related items - like the 2 versions of BB8 I have - would fall under the scrutiny of Micky's legal hellhounds? Hopefully they turn a blind eye to 'fan art' as well... Otherwise I'd have to remove my image of the Deathstar about to toast Kim Song Un... LOL

Interesting point there, Rod. AFAICR, Lucas himself was very supportive of fan art and actively encouraged it in some instances. I have no idea if that good feeling has carried over now The Mouse is in control. In any event, it would be an "interesting" (In the Chinese sense) case that was brought to settle the matter. Since I'm not a lawyer, I wouldn't even begin to second guess anyone involved but I would hope that Lucas' prior behaviour in the matter would have a significant bearing on any ruling. With Disney, however, their answer to everything seems to be "Don't fuck with The Mouse", so you never know.