Hello :)

I guess this is sort of a "philosophical" sort of question that's been in the back of my mind for some strange reason.

If one renders an image made up solely of characters, props, scenes, etc. that were either purchased or free downloads - does this constitute an original artwork? Is simply combining these pieces in a unique or original way sufficient? At what point does it become an original piece?

I can't help but feel like there should be at least one or two things that should be made, not bought/downloaded. But then, I'm new to the world of 3D software so I don't really know.

My hope was that at some point I might have some "original" works that I could make into lithographs, possibly for sale.

If anyone has an opinion on this I'd love to hear it :)

Brian

IMO, once you have composed the scene, posed the characters and props, arranged the lighting and the POV, the artwork is original. 3D software is merely another medium for expressing your imagination.

Brian, Excellent question! Someone here raised the issue of whether or not using Poser is art, since one becomes more of a "Coordinator" and "Compositor" rather than an artist. However, on the other hand, photographers don't create anything, and their work is considered original. Now, this issue may get sticky in terms of the copyrights and wrongs of whether or not you can sell your image, if it includes objects/materials obtained in the freestuff, you just have to abide by the guidelines. Sometimes the nature of your work may not be suitable for commercial use because you may draw, for instance, a copyrighted/trademarked character of someone else's creation, etc. But for me, God has blessed me with skills to draw, sculpt, paint and POSE. I do believe it is art, and it does indeed take a bit of skill to acheive what you want to acheive. Just my two cents. Ben MessianicArt.com

Attached Link: http://www.posertrax.com

It also depends on whether the creators of the models, textures, etc. that you use specify that you can't use it in commercial work. Most of the time when you buy something, you can use it in any commercial work, but a lot of free downloads prohibit it. The best thing to do is to always check the read me file of any download. When in doubt, email/contact the creator directly and tell them what you're planning to do, see if it falls under restriction. (i.e., a book or magazine cover that you get paid for creating, for example). In my case, I've made it really easy for the folks using my stuff to be able to use it commercially without extra payment or royalty to me. The only restriction I place on my files is that they can't sell or license the individual "source" files in any way. Hope this helps! --silver

It's all in the vision. I don't know about anyone else but I can't just make something using this, this, this and that. It has to come to me first. If it requires something I can't make then I need to buy it but the idea, the vison is mine, not the prop makers.

As someone stated above photographers do this all the time. They don't create their models (people, actors, whatever) or all the props etc. They arrange what they have, buy or hire and set-up the lighting and pose then snap the picture. That is what any 3D render is, an electronically created photo. So yes it is art.

Brian, I'll tell you exactly what all of my instructors have told us in each and every class. Nothing is original anymore, all you do is borrow ideas and arrange them in a different way. Take a font for example, once the first one was built, the rest just revolved around that, looking different, but all boil down to the same basic concept. The same thing goes for Poser/3D art. Once the concept was laid, everything revolves around that. Sure there are unique characters, clothing, materials, etc, but it all "borrows" from something that came before that. When you think of how long the world has been in existance, it does make sense that nothing is technically "new" just different, changed, and unique in your own personal way. Basically I see all art as combining elements in an arangement that is unique to your thought pattern at the moment. That's just my way of looking at things though, I'm sure a lot of people will disagree with me on that, but hey, everyone has an opinion.

" ... but a lot of free downloads prohibit it."

Hmmmm???????????

I wonder why this is ...... anybody have any ideas?

If I take a outdoor photograph and it just happens to have a "brand xyz" automobile shown in it, can I then be told by the automobile manufacturer (or dealer, or the salesperson that sold the car) that I can not use my photograph for any commercial purpose because THEY said that I could not?

If I photograph a beautiful landscape, can the owner of the property that I have taken a picture of, tell me that I can not use my photo for commercial purposes?

Where does one "draw the line" as far as what can and can not be used in a commercial photograph (or work of art)?

It would seem to me that by using something in a picture (be it a photo or a render), you would be increasing the visibility of the item (be it a prop or texture or background or ... you fill in the blank) and would amount to free advertising for the creator of the prop, texture, etc.

If the creator did not want it used, why would they make it available in the first place? Or, could it just be an ego trip to see their name printed or "up in lights" somewhere?

Why do you buy an "abc" television set instead of an "xyz" television?
Haven't you complimented the "abc" company when you buy or use their product?

If I buy a can of paint and was told that I couldn't use it to paint a public building, would I make the purchase? No, I wouldn't! ................. Would you?

Is it possible that the creator of "something" might prohibit the "commercial" use of what they have created because they can't stand the thought that someone ELSE might make some money, and the creator probably wouldn't get any of the money? Must we put a price on EVERYTHING? Is it free, or isn't it?

"Free for non-commercial use ... " ........ Ok, here's a dollar ..... now can I use it commercially?

Geep, I agree. I don't like it when folks put something in 'free stuff' but don't let you use it in renders that you would sell. Of course, if you create a model of say Bugs Bunny, and then put it in freestuff, and someone uses that in a commercial render, they open themselves up to a lawsuit as they are using someone else's copyrighted/trademarked creation for profit. But then again, when it's free, I can't really demand my money back. ben

This question comes up so often in different forms. I don't understand the conflect. 1-There is only 8 types of movies, it is the personal touch of the director/actors that make it different. 2-I have played/written music for over 30 years, nothing has changed in over 500 years. There are only so many notes/chords/changes that you can use. It's the personal touch that makes it different. 3-Art is any form of imagination put forth to extract the emotions of others. So all in all, I dont know why this question needs to be asked. The question is, do you feel that it is art. Do you put your own feelings/dreams into your work? Then you will have your answer. Tashar 59

Who could possibly review EVERYTHING in the entire world everyday
to find out if someone had "used" a freebie in a commercial product anyway?

And, if someone found something, what would they do about it?

Bring a law$uit against them and try and $ue?

Do you realize how difficult (if not impossible) it would be to bring a lawsuit against someone in Sweden who used a free prop in a commercial piece of "art" and the prop was created by someone in Australia? <---(this is just an example)

What lawyer (in his or her right mind) would even consider such a case? (unless, of course, it involved several million dollars and the lawyer thought they could win the case) ;=]

Just a few more of my thoughts on the subject. ;=]

BTW - What ARE the 8 types of movies? ;=]

Geep, I agree. I personally hate the litigiosity (is that a word) of society, but ethically I wouldn't want to violate anyone's copyright.

I totally agree with you about not wanting to violate anyone's copyright.

-but-

Do you really think that all the freebies here are copyrighted?

Why would anyone copyright anything that is free?

A copyright is obtained to (allegedly) protect the creator (of something) from having someone else produce and sell (for profit) the original item.

So, why would anyone copyright anything that is freely given away? <----(or was it?) ;=]

It's the 8 basic story line. Like boy gets girl,boy losses girl, boy becomes crazy killer, boy save world, can't remember all 8 but that's the jest of it.

In US Law, as I understand it, once you create something, it is automatically copyrighted, although for some reason, you can still "register" it somehow, which seems to me to be a waste of time, unless there is some potential problem of proving you created it. If it is a specific character, you can get a trademark, which is different. But I agree with the idea that if you give something away for free, do it with no strings attached. In my 'free stuff' files, I do have two strings attached, which is that it cannot be used for illegal or pornographic purposes - but I think that is reasonable, as I would not want to contribute to anything such as that. But if you make a picture you're going to sell using the free stuff I made, go to town! I'm staunchly pro-Capitalism, and anti-socialism, anti-communism. So, when someone has the "no commercial use" strings attached, it usually goes right to the Recycle Bin, unless it is of such quality that I would pay for it. And another thing. I get extremely annoyed when folks don't have a "terms of use" txt file along with the free thing, as I have to write them and ask what the terms of use are. Poser items usually have the TOU, but free Bryce files almost never have them. It would be an ideal world to download all this free stuff without worrying one bit about "terms of use", copyrights or copywrongs, but, sigh, the Millenial Kingdom of the Messiah has not yet arrived. Ben MessianicArt.com

Steve Cox has worked many hours (I'm sure) to produce an excellent "tool" that many Poser users (including myself) probably would not like the idea of doing without it.

Steve has his software copyrighted so that he is protected from someone else simply making a copy of the UVMP file (perhaps changing the name, and, of course, the author) and then selling it to make a profit. This would be stealing from Steve and would be wrong.

A case in point ...

If Steve gave away his product (which, in fact he has done, and is still doing for UVMapper Classic <--- (NOT the Pro version) then it wouldn't make any sense for someone to try and sell it when people could get it for free from Steve.

Do you really think that all the freebies here are copyrighted? yes, they all are. http://whatiscopyright.org/ So, when someone has the "no commercial use" strings attached, it usually goes right to the Recycle Bin, unless it is of such quality that I would pay for it. usually you don't even have to pay for it, just ask permission. yes, there are some who do require a small fee for commercial use. not a problem. some apps do that. free for students, otherwise you gotta pay. it's just the way it is. if you're going to make money, share it with the person who helped enable you to make that money. seems alright to me.

" ... I do have two strings attached, which is that it cannot be used for illegal or pornographic purposes ..."

... is admirable, but how can you ever know if a "string" is being violated?

(rhetorical) Could you possibly scan all the porn sites everyday to find out if someone had not complied with your "string?"

I am sure that some of the scantily clad women depicted on this site have been (and will be) used on porn sites.

What can you do about it?

IMVHO, nothing!

It is the world that we live in. ;=]

Re: your last paragraph, Amen!

AprilYSH, If you take a photo and are then able to sell it as a poster or postcard or anything else, do you then pay a little bit to Sony because they made the camera, and Kodak because they made the film, and Wal*Mart because they processed it? Just a thought. ;=]

yes, i bought the camera from sony, and i bought the film from kodak, didn't i? :)

"is admirable, but how can you ever know if a "string" is being violated?" I can't. And even if I found someone who did violate the 'string' - all I would do is tell them they violated it angrily, and tell them to take it down, or remove the 'free thing' from the picture digitally. If they don't, I wouldn't pursue it any further, just not associate with that person, etc. I wouldn't think of litigating anything, because I'm broke, and I hate lawsuits. "(rhetorical) Could you possibly scan all the porn sites everyday to find out if someone had not complied with your "string?" "Enforcing" any strings would be almost impossible, unless you came across the violation randomly, or something. "I am sure that some of the scantily clad women depicted on this site have been (and will be) used on porn sites." Probably, which is why I avoid creating any picture that is suggestive, or contains any nudity. I think the human body is the pinnacle of God's creation, and is the ultimate artwork, but I would not post any nudity, lest I cause someone to sin. Also, my website is a Christian/Messianic website, and I would like it to be suitable for people of all ages, so I wouldn't post anything nude, even if it is artistically done, for this reason, and also, as I said before, not to cause someone to sin, as this may create a temptation for someone to go to an adult site, etc. However, I took life drawing, and loved it, I just would crop any picture I drew in there before posting it, for the reasons above, although they are not pornographic. "Re: your last paragraph, Amen!" =-D Right on brotha! God bless, Ben MessianicArt.com

" ... yes, i bought the camera from sony, and i bought the film from kodak, didn't i? :) "

So, after you have earned more with your camera than you paid for it, do you "share" (just a teensy-weensy little bit) of your excess "profit" with Sony, Kodak, Wal*Mart, Coca-Cola, Hundai, etc., etc.? .................. ;=]

Just curious. ;=]

no. their share is pre-paid :) that's the difference between for sale and "freestuff that have a no-commercial-use restriction" - for "freestuff that have a no-commercial-use restriction" you actually get to have and play with the product with no money down and you only have to pay for it if you do want to make money using it. great huh? ;)

Geep sez: "So, after you have earned more with your camera than you paid for it, do you "share" (just a teensy-weensy little bit) of your excess "profit" with Sony, Kodak, Wal*Mart, Coca-Cola, Hundai, etc." Overall--for most props, the "no commercial use" restriction unintentionally cripples the practical usage for the prop. Any item used in an image in the Renderosity market would constitute "commercial use" since it was used in an image to promote the sale of an item. Items in those images outside of the vendor's original creation are subject to the permissions outlined by the creators of the non vendored items. Offering "personal and commercial use" in the READ ME file makes the burden of showcasing an item a little easier. Geep also sez: "Do you really think that all the freebies here are copyrighted? Why would anyone copyright anything that is free?" Remember...just because you download a file for free or otherwise does not mean you legally own the item. The only thing that you are given is the RIGHT to use the item in your images (and within certain guidelines). Allowing you to store the creator's code on your computer is a necessity for you to produce that image in your 3D program of choice--which is usually a transaction of good faith. The creator of the file is trusting you to use the file in accordance with the permissions he has freely given you, and trusting you to respect his restrictions. If you allowed your neighbor to borrow your lawnmower, you would obviously be outraged and angry if he sold it to someone else...but you'd probably be upset if he decided to use it to blow the gravel out of his flower bed or grind down a few tree stumps in his back yard. If you let him borrow it for free or charged him by the hour--some restrictions would still apply.

I have nothing of any note to contribute to this thread, I just want to let Freakachu know that for some reason his nikname really cracks me up. :)~

The art question: The models and textures are just tools for the artist. I sell (and also give away) models. They're tools for you to use. What you render with them isn't something I would have rendered. It's your creation. The freestuff copyright question: People restrict the use of their files for all sorts of reasons. I have EasyPose figures in the freestuff. I may give them away, but they are definitely copyrighted and I certainly don't want anybody redistributing or selling my EasyPose code that I spent days of tedium writing into those files. I make it clear in my license agreements that what they do with their renders is their business. As a merchant I find it extremely inconvenient that there are many things in the freestuff that I can't use in store renders and that most times I don't know that until I've spent half an hour downloading them over my dial-up. However I recognise that some makers of free stuff are philosophicaly opposed to the sale of Poser items and would not want to support my endeavours as a merchant. That's their right. Whatever their reasoning may be, they are perfectly entitled to restrict the use of their softgoods in any way they desire.

There is a distinct difference between "free" and "public domain". Everything anyone creates automatically remains the copyright of the creator even if it is given away free. If the creator explicitly revokes their copyright, it becomes public domain and you can do what you like with it. However, as said above, if I take a photo of your house, the copyright is mine, and you don't have any legal case to stop me. Hence these "no commercial use" clauses probably have no legal weight, since I own the copyright to my render of your mesh. Respecting them, though, is a matter of courtesy. Don't kick the people who give you stuff.

Actually, um, there is this thing called a Model Release Form that is recommended to photographers to use--you get your (human) models to sign it. This is a legal thing that says that they allow you to use their likeness as you wish. Now, actors, whose likeness is their livelihood, will jump all over you if you use their likeness without permission in certain situations. Likewise, it's wise to get permission for the owner of the house/whatever in the same way. You get my drift. Which has nothing to do with digital models... those are copyright to the originator, period, unless created in a work-for-hire situation. They are giving away a free license to use the model, they are not giving away the ownership or copyright of the model. You have to respect another's creation--golden rule style, ya know? So, for someone like Kozaburo who makes immensely popular hair but has a "no commercial" restriction--just ask. He's waived the restriction in the past, i think he just wants a say in how it's used. Why? Doesn't matter, really. Just respect it and move on. Enough sea-lawyering...

Okay, this topic comes up from time to time so here is the offical word on it: "_________________________________________________" And that seems to be the prob. Lots of opinion and personal viewpoints but nothing official. But then who could be Official? Seems like nearly every body and every country out there has its own rules and regs on this issue, but most do try to follow an international copyright guideline I suppose. I personally believe that if I make a render it is my creation, regardless of the source material. However, some people who post their products(to free stuff in particular) do not feel this way and believe they have some say over how I use their texture or mesh in my art work. I try to respect that - I do not have to agree with them. To me Poser is very much like photography as an art form. I don't make the real world models, clothing, props, etc., I film and the photograph results are mine. Nevertheless, there are often conditions as to what I can do with the photos I take. Yes, if I use a model, I may very well need a release form. Yes, there are some structures I can not photograph without getting myself into trouble - this is not uncommon in some countries. Clearly, product names and trademarks are protected, so I can not use these in my photos legally without permission. So, how does it work out. Well, I know I can use stuff like music, art work, etc., for my personal enjoyment. I might even use this on a personal web site without any real problem - but if I go commercial and use other folks music, images, written words, etc., without their permission so I can make money from it, they may very well have a problem. That sort of brings you back to trying to respect the wishes of the creator - as best you can - whether you agree or disagree with them about it. At least for now. Maybe one day soon this issue will be officially resolved - but I am not holding my breath. Just my 2cents Rob

I also like the name "Freakachu" lol

To Impudicus Rex: The best Pikachu variations I've seen from other forums have been Pikacthulu and Vodkachu. --- The cheapest solution I've found to the copyright restrictions is to purchase "club" memberships from some of the Poser sites out there and purchase CD collections. It should naturally follow that a site owner make the use restrictions clear to the customer BEFORE they purchase a password to the site (or buy the item). Most sites offer "commercial use" with a membership pass...however, this does not mean that there are a few pay sites that do not. So read the fine print. If a site does not have copyright restrictions posted--you should e-mail the owners and ask them specifically what hoops you need to jump through to use the items commercially. I think it would be really bad form to charge a member of the community for an item and then surprise them with the "no commercial use" restriction in the README file. I have the "commercial" restrictions on only a few freestuff items of my own (there's a reason for this--if you're not doing a project for one of the online gambling sites that consistantly spam me, I'd probably waive even those few "commercial" restrictions). Overall, I think "commercial" restrictions hinder Poser as a professional tool and downgrade it to the ranks of "cool toy".

Has it been two weeks already?

Whoops! Using copyrighted music on a personal website without permission is NOT legal.