I'm not sure whether this is the correct Forum to post this but I've been watching the continuing battle over the matter of Blackhearted's lighting set with some interest over the last few weeks. Now while I find that Bebops release of a very similar lighting set somewhat immoral, though I suspect there are other motives for his actions, I find it difficult to understand how you can claim the action to be illegal. Blackhearted claims many times, amongst his continuous personal attacks on Bebop, that he owns the copyright on the lighting set when he clearly does not. The reason I say this is because if Blackhearted owned the copyright this would mean that there are certain dial settings within Poser that I or anyone else cannot use because I don't own BH's set. Taking this to it's logical conclusion it means that if I decided to release an item with say all the red settings on a light then I would own the copyright which means that none of you can use red anymore unless you get a license from me. This is obviously nonsense. Anyway I decided to write to Curious Labs and ask them if they could make a judgement on this. Below is the email I sent and the reply I received. I think you will agree this throws a whole new light(pardon the pun) on the affair and certainly has repercusions for all other camera sets, lighting sets etc which are currently on sale in the Market Place. Hi Mike! I spoke with Steve Cooper, our President yesterday concerning this matter. The lights that are for sale are generally sets of dial settings and they do not require additional software or plug-ins. You cannot copyright dial settings or content/part of the Poser program. **************************** Tori Porter Product Development Specialist Curious Labs, Inc -----Original Message----- From: MikeKnott Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 12:28 PM To: legal@curiouslabs.com Subject: copyright issues Hi, I've noticed recently that a number of individuals are offering lighting sets and camera sets for sale at various sites, Renderosity, 3D Commune etc, and are claiming that they own the copyright on these items. Does this mean that there are now various settings for lights, cameras etc that we cannot use unless we own their products. It seems that if this practice continues and all settings eventually become "copyrighted" by individuals then we will find ourselves in the position where we can not use the cameras or lights with in Poser unless we also purchase these sets. So to put it simply can an individual claim and/or own copyright on some dial settings? Thanks for your time Mike

Which pretty much answers all the silly previous questions on copyright of poses as well. Thanks for that little clarification.

Not really. There's no clarity to it. Don't think CL necessarily has the last say in this just because they make Poser. What you're looking at is intellectual property rights. The above argument is bad logic and doesn't display an understanding of copyright law. It's like saying you can't copyright a book because then eventually all the words in the language will be copyrighted. It's the work that went into the combination that is Blackhearted's investment, and the combination itself that is protected. "...the position where we can not use the cameras or lights with in Poser unless we also purchase these sets." A copyright doesn't mean someone can't use something, it means they can't redistribute it without permission. Copyright is exactly that: the right to make copies. That's what the read me's are all about. In the unlikely event that someone develops a set of lights so very similar to the first set and releases them, that's just tacky, not illegal. But as VirtualSite so amply demonstrated, these are precisely the same lights and someone is intentionally perpetrating fraud. However you look at it, someone is ripping off Blackhearted's efforts and I'm tired of watching people come up with lame excuses to assuage their consciences so they can use the free ones (not an accusation against you Mike).

well a few interesting points. Questor I must admit I'd not thought about Poses though with poses I think that is possibly more of a grey area. Hiram you say "But as VirtualSite so amply demonstrated, these are precisely the same lights" I'm sorry but I can not find any evidence to prove that. I just had a look at VS's comparison and to be honest I think it proves entirely the opposite. Yes the sets are similar but I can only find one identical setting in all the pages of his "evidence" now how many different settings are we talking about here? maybe a couple of hundred or more and he could only find one that's the same! But anyway the point I'm making here is not whether Bebop copied his set or not. I'm not denying Blackhearted put a lot of work into his set. The point I'm making is that you cannot copyright light sets and to be honest, Hiram, no offense intended, but I'm more inclined to believe the legal department and the president of Curious labs judgement when they say you cannot "copyright dial settings or content/part of the Poser program." than your judgement.

You cannot copy a method of doing something, but you can copyright the way in which it is done. This seems to me to be the case. I am not a copyright lawyer, but one of my hobbies is writing a tabletop game, which I intend to copyright. I have a copy of those guidelines. This seems to me to be why there is a Monopoly (tm) and lots of other "poly" type games (for colleges and cities and so forth). The method of going around the board and collecting things and paying money and such is not a copyright. So turning dials within Poser is not copyrightable. I hate to see anyone ripped off, if that is the case. I think it is somewhat unethical, though. Here's the actual text on this: -- WHAT IS NOT PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT? Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others: Works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of expression (for example, choreographic works that have not been notated or recorded, or improvisational speeches or performances that have not been written or recorded) Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources) --

Show me the same answer from a lawyer and I might be impressed. What would possess you to ask a bunch of programmers and marketing people about copyright issues?

I just had a fifty-millionth look at the compared lighting sets and there are more than ONE similarity. Look outside of the red boxes, there are a lot of rotation settings that are identical and a cooincidence of 0.15 and 0.16 is just a tad bit weird at best. Most of the numbers are aproximately one off. (In some cases changed from .477 to .577 or such.) Other than the fact that most of the light settings has the identical number of lights (and the same, if not unnoticeably different color settings) I spoke to one of my design professors at school right after I saw the entire string and we tried looking into it further, but couldn't get BeBops set to open on the G4's down at school. The one thing that my professor did say, was that it WAS in fact copyright infringement. We discussed this with the class (which just so happens to be Graphic Design Professional Practices and Advanced Problems for those interested) and came to the conclusion through research and digging through copyright books that "All intelectual property is copyrighted at the original time of creation by the original creator." In lamen's terms "Dude, that's F***ING wrong." The dials themselves are not copyrighted, BUT the specific settings within the dials and combinations of settings IS in fact copyrighted to BlackHearted (which is obviously his due to the orignal date of the readme file. C'mon, We all know what month and year comes first) If you'd like to flame or debate me on the issue, e-mail me, go ahead. I could care less. It's the same issue with creating an origial piece of artwork out of pixles and meshes that belong to someone else. You own the copyright to the IMAGE created with settings, the WHOLE, not the parts.

thanks for the support folks. i actually suspect that mikeknott is pretty closely affiliated with bebop, since hes been trolling my gallery with bebops usual bs. as for no copyrights on lights because theyre just a bunch of dial settings? gee... then i guess there can be no copyrights on poses either, since theyre just dial settings that anyone who owns poser can reproduce. and no copyrights on meshes, because theyre just a bunch of numbers that anyone could theoretically reproduce. and no copyrights on literature, since theyre just a bunch of words that ANYONE could put together in the same sequence. no copyrights on images either, since a bitmap is just a sequence of colored dots that anyone could reproduce. and as for steve cooper's response - i dont see what a programmer has to do with any of this. and i wonder what steve cooper would say if i started redistributing poser, since all it is is a bunch of code that ANYONE could reproduce. although i seriously doubt that you explained the situation to him fully, or that you are quoting him in context. i wouldnt put anything past you or bebop (assuming youre two separate people). cheerio, -gabriel

I think it's completely clear who's in the right here, legally or not. It's between you and your self esteem what you choose to do with it. You want to be a lame-ass and support piracy, that's your choice. But just know that you're going to look at a lame-ass in the mirror every morning. I firmly believe that every sane adult has an inborn moral sense and knows right from wrong. What make the difference between good people and bad people is that the good one have the integrity to do the right thing. Just remember which side of this you were on when someone steals your property. Someone who breaks a law has lost the priviledge of invoking it.

Just weighing in myself..... Yup, only one exact match, but the rest were within pretty tiny tolerances that would be damn difficult for someone to create independently. Sorry, Mikeknott, these are indeed one and the same. Any incredibly slight variations could easily be accounted to the simple act of copying the set, then copying it again and again -- like a photocopy, data does indeed degrade (however slightly) every time it's copied. And when we're looking at variations this small? Get real, bud. Sean

its not so much the warezing of my work that bothers me, hiram. if someone cannot afford my work and chooses to download a pirated version, it doesnt bother me as much. i get plenty of legitimate sales - so when i see one of my products in a render by someone in the gallery who is not on my buyers list, i dont make a fuss at all. im confident that the honest people will compensate me for my work anyways... and the MAJORITY of people are honest. in fact, it was my customers and potential customers that alerted me to bebop's site - and purchased my light set even after they could have downloaded virtually the identical set from him for free. it does make me proud that this community has so much integrity and honesty. what DOES bother me is that some little parasite took my work, repackaged it, claimed it as his own, hosted it on his website and was posting links to it here and directing people to it in a shameless effort to sabotage my sales and cause me stress. theres a world of difference between the two. cheers, -gabriel

True, true. Still, they're both wrong. Thank you for handling this with grace and dignity.

I think there is a real issue here about how wide the possible set is and how common any particular settings would be to achieve an end. For instance in programming it is NOT possible to patent or copywrite the most common or obvious ways to accomplish a task. So for instance I cannot copy right ... print "hello worldn"; No matter WHAT I try and do with it. It is simply to common and obvious to the task. So, for instance, the common concept of the globular liights, or say the curved backdrop is simply not something that can be copyrighted or patented (in a way that will stand up). So... it may be that the light set in question is simply to close to the optimal or common/obvious solution for those situations to stand up if challenged. A pose will be exactly the same thing. A model as a whole on the other hand represents usually a MUCH larger problem space. You couldn't copyright the mesh for a sphere, but you probably can for Victoria :) Now, an REALLY interesting thing here is the idea of a re-implementation. If I take Poser, open it up and make lights that look just like this set then I could legally distribute it - and it is irrelevant of the settings are the same. It is NOT legal for me to simply re-distribute someoen elses work. The concept is reverse engineering and "clean room" implementations. Feel free to check with your IP lawyer about it :) What I Am finding sort of odd is that Renderosity is more and more a website that seems to exist soley as a platform for the persecution complex of a select few. It would be nice to go a day or two without hearing certain menmbers accuse someoen of attacking them.

SH - were not talking about a similarity in lighting effects on a render here. were talking about 24+ lights being in the EXACT relative position in 3d space and the EXACT order as a set created by another artist. it is virtually impossible to create something like that with so many lights without using the original as a source.

Admittedly I haven't seen either light package, so I didn't know that there's a similarity in sequence and position. That's definately a rip-off of someone's work. Blackhearted (and everyone else), don't think that because I posted part of a copyright FAQ that I advocate finding loopholes in the system or trapsing off to get Bebop or whomever's lights. I am just the type of person that likes it all laid out with all cards on the table. I really think that if there are clear similarities (and there are from what I'm reading here), then bebop should consider pulling his light collection.

umm.. let me restate - its not 'his' light collection. were not talking about two competing products here, or some sortof dispute over an idea. its a repackaging of my marketplace product. and he has pulled it from his site, btw. and were not talking about copyrighting a method here. a 'method' would be the entire GI emulation preset lighting style - and if that were copyrightable, i would be guilty as well, since i believe someone else started that whole idea. he HAS taken a very precise and elaborate set of lights and DIRECTLY copied them. no, you cannot copyright an idea. if ford makes a new car, i look at it, and make my own that looks similar, then i am perfectly within my rights. however, if i steal the blueprints, and build the EXACT same car, just with a wheelbase thats 1/4 of an inch longer, ive committed a very serious crime. this is what were talking about here. he hasnt just created lights that LOOK the same, hes renamed and repacked the EXACT same light scenes. it is inconceivable that someone can create a light scene with 24 different lights with the EXACT same orientation in 3d space, in the EXACT same order, with the EXACT same intensities/shadow settings and color settings... (although some of them were conveniently altered a tenth of a degree) what were talking about here is beyond coincidence. not in a million years could a thousand people reproduce it like that, even if he had the original side by side. there is no way to reproduce so many lights in a scene so precisely unless he modified the original.

I don't think there's any doubt that bebop's light set was not constructed independently. The evidence is convincing. However, I would have thought that the opinions of Curious Labs in the matter were worth taking into consideration. Lawyers or no lawyers, Poser is their business. They need to take IPR into very serious consideration. I don't think whoever wrote the copyright law ever knew about Poser, so a pragmatic approach is necessary. This is only my guess, since I have no contact with bebop, but I suspect that this act of distributing that light set was more of a protest against the idea that a light set should be copyrightable than any regard for the quality of that light set in particular. As I said in another thread, I wouldn't use that light set ever, I have no interest in it. But I am worried that someone will start claiming copyright on basic poses, and claim some of the arguments above as precedent.

It's a matter of ethics. My husband spent the money and went through the steps to copyright the name of his band. Then we find out another band is using the name. Do we want to spend the time, money and effort to go after the other band in court? Although we are clearly in the right, the other band can use the name until we stop them. As it was, the band understood and changed the name without a hassle, but if they hadn't I honestly don't know if we would have gone too far with this as it would have been very expensive for us to deal with it. I often wonder about the poses and the characters that others have created. It's like music, there are only so many notes and sooner or later someone will write something that sounds and reads close to someone else's work. If you create something entirely new, say like Dina, then I see a copyright. But to use someone else's product to change something and then try to "own" the changes strikes me as not being something you can copyright. There are only so many combinations you can use, and sooner or later someone will come up with something close, if not right on the money. Two different lawyers will come up with two different answers to the same question, it all seems to depend on which side they are defending. Would I buy a set of dial parameters? No. Would I buy a python script for lights? Yes. Marque

"but I suspect that this act of distributing that light set was more of a protest against the idea that a light set should be copyrightable than any regard for the quality of that light set in particular" then you dont know bebop very well, i suppose. keep in mind that this is a person whose first attack against me, besides personal attacks, was the reposting of one of my copyrighted gallery images with his little 'alterations'. when asked by myself and the admins to remove it, he refused - and laughed when i threatened legal action. then he went on to troll almost my entire gallery several times under several different nicknames, and post 'parodies' of my images in the gallery with vicious insults against myself and some of the renderosity members who commented on my images. when he was finally and permanently banned, he created several new nicknames and continued his efforts. just recently his 5th or 6th incarnation was banned. i have my suspicions that mikeknott is either his 7th or a very close friend of his, since hes taken to trolling my gallery as well for no reason that i can fathom. so if you believe that any of this is based upon some noble purpose to defend copyrights for us all, youre very wrong. this is just the culmination of a series of pathetic personal attacks made by a small-minded individual who has a complete disregard for the law, and who believes he is untouchable because he lives in great britain and knows about anonymity proxies. and all this is over the fact that i left a negative comment on one of his gallery images that i thought was inappropriate over a year ago. bebop is not sane, phantast. sane people do not act in this manner. "I am worried that someone will start claiming copyright on basic poses" with 'basic poses' i think you mean something like... ideas for poses. ideas for poses are not copyrightable - so for example noone can claim copyright for a 'smoking' pose, or a 'sitting with legs crossed' pose, or a 'genuflection' animation. but after one creates a pose, or an animation - one composed of a series of dozens of elaborate dial settings, they own the copyright on it. you dont think BVH files are copyrightable either? of course they are, and all they are is a series of poses. next youre going to say that noone can copyright an action, because any human being can perform it. true, to an extent - but it would be next to impossible to reproduce that exact BVH file without using the source. i think you are confusing something here. the IDEA of global illumination lighting in poser is not copyrightable. but the precise position of over 24 lights in 3d space in an elaborate series of HUNDREDS of dial settings per set is.

"I'm not sure whether this is the correct Forum to post this" im sure you know very well that this is not the correct forum to post this in, mike. "but I've been watching the continuing battle over the matter of Blackhearted's lighting set with some interest over the last few weeks." im sure you have.

I'm saying I agree with all of this bs (the dispute over copyrights)....... I have not seen Bebop's light set, but I have seen Blackhearted's........ as a matter of fact, it was given to Me as a gift by Him. I use it alot since it was given to Me.... browse My gallery. I will say this, bebop never pissed in My corn flakes, or trolled Me, others have, ....... & who was the 1st one to take up for Me ?? Blackhearted, & I appreciate it My friend :). this next post is from the rosity all galleries lead page : Rights to images remain with the artist. okay........ if the images are copyrighted to the artists ...... I feel the GI Light Set by Blackhearted is copyrighted to him as well, He created it, ....... its His. I don't see anyone ripping off WyrmMaster's V V , by buying it, changing the name & repackaging it ?? & adding insult to injury..... by selling it for 1/2 the price. Bet WyrmMaster would have that person's guts for garters. Hell, I would. So, My opinion is Blackhearted is in the right, & bebop has no morals, values, or integrity. & for the record, Blackhearted has shown Me He has great amounts of all the above. Another point to ponder........ if Blackhearted is so wrong, why is it that bebop & all his alter egos are the ones getting banned ??...... & not Blackhearted ?? I thought this issue was over.... since bebop was banned, this forum was pointed out to Me by Blackhearted, & I just had to voice My opinions. Thanks for Reading, Thomas

Quite right, blackhearted, I don't know bebop at all, or any of the things you describe. I'm projecting my ideas on him. I said it was only a guess, which means I allow for the possibility it is a wrong guess. Is there any reason why he's picked on you in particular for such a vendetta? The arguments about copyright go beyond idea and actuality. There have been claims here before that hand poses infringe someone else's copyright on hand poses. The idea of a hand pose for a fist and the actual dial settings are almost inseparable. Any two fist poses are likely to be so close as to be indistinguishable. Anyone claiming copyright on a fist is just a public nuisance. As far as I see it, your point rests somewhat on degree. Twisting one dial can't be copyrighted, but twisting 100 can be. How about 50? 25? 12? Suppose I'm working in a theatre working with real lights. I light a scene with 20 spots, should I be able to copyright the arrangement and sue a rival theatre if they come up with something similar? Let's leave copyright for the purposes for which it was intended - protecting genuine works of creativity. And no, I don't see a 3d arrangement of Poser lights as a creative work no matter HOW much work went into it.

Just a technical point: -- Any incredibly slight variations could easily be accounted to the simple act of copying the set, then copying it again and again -- like a photocopy, data does indeed degrade (however slightly) every time it's copied. And when we're looking at variations this small? Get real, bud. -- Light sets are poser script files (text), an error in copying would happen in a random part of the text file and not just in the characters that happened to be behind a comma. Errors in digital copying are rare (the copy is usually checked for errors) and when they happen it usually means that the file no longer works. Digital copying is as far away from photocopying you can get, photocopies are not even close to being the same as the original they just are similar enough to fool the eye. Beyond that: CL can't dictate what can and can not be copyrighted, if a light set is advanced enough it can be copyrighted as a pattern. Staale

From my personal perspective, especially seeing as this conversation is directly involving Blackhearted. My earlier comment stands. I'm not rescinding it. Now, not owning either light set and relying entirely on imagery and VS's report I think Blackhearted has a valid grievance. While I do not believe it is possible in any way shape or form to copyright the movement of a mouse, twist of a dial or position of a thing. The simple fact that there are so many similarities between so many items indicates with fairly condemning evidence that something is amiss. The odds of someone finding that exact combination over several different items in the same set at almost the same time is slim to virtually ridiculous. Now, if however only one or two lights were in question then I'd go with coincidence. Same with poses. As far as I'm concerned, you can't copyright the things simply because the human body only moves in certain ways so the chances of someone stumbling on that combination are higher, much higher when the size of the Poser userbase is considered. Lights are slightly different in that there is an almost infinite number of combinations that can be used, but I still don't accept they can be copyrighted and there is still a chance that I could create a light scene that is identical to one in the store. Once, perhaps twice. On that note, it is pretty condemning that something untoward has been done simply because there are far more similarities across multiple objects. In my opinion this would be equivelant to me purchasing a pose set and replicating it, because replication is evident here even if it can't be proven they're the same light set. Whether it's actionable is debateable because none of us - as far as I know - are copyright lawyers, but it's certainly ethically and morally questionable. I think Blackhearted has been right to pursue this to defend his store product from what can be termed blatant replication, but I doubt that he actually has a legal standing for action that will hold in court. Whatever the case actually is here. I am not defending bebop nor Blackhearted, I know neither of them well enough nor do I care much about either. It is grossly unfair for Blackhearted to have suffered this situation but it is also IMO a very grey area indeed as we are talking simply about the location of program devices limited by the program creators dealt with by dial positions created by the program writers. If anyone owns copyright to Poser lights, it's Curious Labs. But then, isn't that in itself a bit silly? Can any of us think of another 3D app that uses lights? Could blackhearted have a claim of copyright violation if a Lightwave user set up a light set that was like his? Can the writers of the first 3d program have an actionable claim against every manufacturer since then who has included lights in their application? This starts to get into the realms of ludicrous. Morally, ethically and intellectually (he perhaps thought of them first) Blackhearted is in the right, as I said earlier the evidence from VS is pretty condemning. Legally, I doubt he has much chance of achieving much. Personally I think that's rather fortunate or in the not so distant future a lot of people could be at each other's throats because of this sort of thing. Poses, cameras, lights, faces, characters cannot be copyrighted IMO. They are dial settings and while there are a vast number of settings available there are also a finite number of settings in the long term. The "chances" of similarity become slimmer because of the variety of combinations and imagination of people but grow with larger numbers of people. I guess all I'm saying is, before we all start screaming copyright violation we might want to think rationally about it. But, in no way does this devalue Blackhearted's claim of wrong doing, simply because it's more than one or two instances of chance. Many more instances. I agree in principle with Blackhearted's definition of his copyright. Where it is claimed across multiple lights, multiple colours with multiple dial settings, it's certainly intellectually protected because he thought of them. I uphold the claim that someone could possibly replicate one of those scene sets by accident, but not all of them. I think, looking at the images of the lights I could replicate them relatively easily. However, I'm not convinced at all that I would stumble on those precise dial settings on so many lights in several different scene sets at the same time. That stretches even my generous believability. And that's the last word from me on this subject.

This is really pathetic. The entire fact that this thread even exists is just... sad. "I've been watching the continuing battle over the matter of Blackhearted's lighting set with some interest over the last few weeks." Um... according to MY clock, this issue had been solidly dead for awhile. And now that it looks like it might actually have stayed that way, you bring it up again? What purpose does that serve except to cause further agitation? I hope the administrators delete this thread because I think the best thing for this community would be to move on and stop beating the dead Bebop... errrr... horse.

Did you all know that a list of web links is copyrightable? While an individual link might not be, the effort to put together a unique collection of links is a copyrigtable piece of work. So if you can copyright a list of links, I find it reasonable to say that a collection of lights as a collection are a copyrightable effort. Placing one light at dial location X with values A, B, and C is probably not copyrightable, but placing THIRTY lights in a set of 10 or 20 and collecting them seems like just as much a creative act as making a list of web links.

I remember reading that some waster created a web site half of which was a list of his t-shirts, and the other half was copyright warning notices in case anyone should steal his list of t-shirts. Sad, sad.

If I, on my own, came up with the same or similar settings as Blackhearted's light settings then I can use them and save them freely. What is wrong about the two light sets is that someone took someone else's work, moved a few dials, re-packaged it and claimed it as his own.

It would be like me taking War and Peace, changing a couple of words, adding a new cover art and publishing it as mine.

If I have the same setting of one of blackhearted's lights that is not a copyright violation. It's entirely possible that someone would come up with a same setting. (All lights with the same settings is highly improbable) The actual package however, is copyrightable.

Bebop and his friends are missing the point by a mile.

Attached Link: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html

"WHAT WORKS ARE PROTECTED?
Copyright protects "original works of authorship" that are fixed in a tangible form of expression. The fixation need not be directly perceptible so long as it may be communicated with the aid of a machine or device. Copyrightable works include the following categories:

(1) literary works;
(2) musical works, including any accompanying words
(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music
(4) pantomimes and choreographic works
(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works
(7) sound recordings
(8) architectural works
These categories should be viewed broadly. For example, computer programs and most "compilations" may be registered as "literary works"; maps and architectural plans may be registered as "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works."

This is not a grey area folks. These lights are code, and code is protected. Just ask Bill Gates. The similarities have been documented and in all liklihood the difference is less than one percent. If I republish someone else's book with a few instances of changed grammar, I'm liable for legal action and I'll loose.

And I could have sworn I put this link in my earlier post.

Well, it's all very interesting. Mind you, I feel Blackhearted is justifiable in his discussions. That is, IMHO, because of the possible combinations, positions, etc., of the lights he has configured. (I got one free with my Selyne Combo, so I have seen those 24 lights!) It's hard to imagine ANYONE being able to "reverse-engineer" that lighting configuration (tho AMD seems too have managed its case with Intel over its reverse-engineered x86 knockoff) by simply looking at a render that was made using it. NOT within the slight variations attested to above. What DOES worry me, though, and I guess this might be the point where lawyers would step in, is another point mentioned above and that is: what if the lighting set had 10 lights in it? Or 5? There comes a point at which a lighting set could have been easily "originally created" without knowing another even existed if, say, only 4 lights were used. Which ties in to a more recent comment, that a list of URLs is copywritable. That, again, seems to depend on numbers. IF, and I say IF, there was a site that listed 1,000 makers of widgets, and another site listed 999, I might begin to wonder, indeed, be somewhat sure, that someone had stolen somebody else's ward work. On the other hand, If I saw a list of URLs for the top ten car-makers in the world on one site, I doubt that any other site would get in trouble for having the same list (even in the same order). Otherwise, that one site would be the only site in the entire world authorized to present that list and that's bordering on the absurd.

Ugh! "ward work" = "hard work". (hey, can I get a copyright on that?)

"This is not a grey area folks. These lights are code, and code is protected. Just ask Bill Gates. The similarities have been documented and in all likelihood the difference is less than one percent. If I republish someone else's book with a few instances of changed grammar, I'm liable for legal action and I'll loose."

Actually, not all code can be protected. These lights are settings, they represent the position of objects in space. Depending on the ruling of an individual judge hearing the case you may or may not be able to protect them... it would depend on whether that judge felt that they were obvious and common implementations fo common concepts or not.

There is a REASON why IP law is a huge business, because there ARE grey areas like this - ad quoting a few paragraphs doesn't change that.

Me, I am  more interested in the sheer number of people who seem to be part of this 'conspiracy'. It seems to me that anyone who disagrees with some folks is part of it - and every past slight and attack is dredged up about 3 times a week or so in some thread someplace.

Did the light set get copied? I have no idea - the similarities certainly look like it, but then I don't know if that is because it is the most obvious arrangement of those lights. If the file was directly copied and distributed would I consider it a violation? Sure thing.

Am I a little tired of the paranoia? You bet.

Mesh vertices are simply an arrangement of an object in space. Does this mean I could take, say, Anton's pop stars clothes, move all of the vertices a little bit, and then post them on my web site?

arrangement of an object in space Sorry, I can't resist. No, you can't. Can you create a set of clothes on your own that look like Anton's and distribute them on your site. Yes. Why? Because you are highly unlikely to be able to recreate the exact vertice count, or the hand strokes used by Anton to make the clothes or the exact process he used to make it, or the exact same cuts for grouping or much of anything else, assuming you have the same level of skill and the identical software setup it is still highly unlikely that anything you create would be an exact replica of Anton's mesh. Why? Because this is not reliant only on "objects in space" like preset lights and predefined dial parameter limits but on a personal skill and ability, software and process. If you can create anything exactly as the original author in the form of a mesh I would be more than stunned. So, yes you can copyright a mesh. Anton is perfectly safe in copyrighting his mesh secure in the knowledge that anyone accurately replicating his mesh using his techniques with an identical set-up, hand strokes, process, method, plugin and parameter settings as he has used is so infinitesmal as to be foregone in conclusion that it is a copy. This is one reason why the Assassins, Spy and FFantasy suits are so different yet based on the same idea. Anton and Steve Shanks are very close to each other on design, but completely different on implementation, style and method, not to mention probably software. The example you use is ludicrous because of these very reasons.

Mesh objects are not simply an arrangement of vertices in space any more than a painting is an arrangement of pigment on a canvas. And both are different from the arrangment of objects on my desk (can I copyright that?). Creating Anton's clothes or Hockney's paintings takes more than twiddling a few dials. Like ChuckEvans, I find it hard to believe that a list of URLs can be copyrighted. If it is possible, it shouldn't be. Just as it shouldn't be possible for the Olympic Games Committee to force a Greek restaurant called "Olympus" to change its name, even though it's been called that for years. Yet an abusive law permits this.

questor, youre being really thickheaded about this :) i challenge you, even with using my original lighting set as a reference, to recreate my light set. - unless you actually check the numeric data of the dials, or duplicate the file, there is no way you can independantly create a set that is so near identical. do you understand that even if you do not take into account the exact position of the lights, that there are virtually limitless combinations as to the ORIENTATION of those 24 lights? as in.. light 1 is on the upper left, light 2 below it, light 3 is lower right, etc etc. unless you reverse engineered the original, it would be next to impossible for you to just get the ORDER the same. i really hate circular arguments, so ill try once again to explain this in laymans terms: were NOT talking about an IDEA here. the global illumination emulation IDEA for poser is a relatively old one, and there are about a dozen products in freestuff and the daz and renderosity marketplaces that utilize this as a basis. and if you open the products, they are very similar - a dozen or two of very low intensity lights arranged in a spherical pattern around the scene. this is the IDEA. and this is what you believe cannot be coprighted, and i fully agree. what were talking about here is not the IDEA. its the DATA. a light set like this is a very elaborate set of data, of code. yes, it is dial settings, dials to which any poser user has access. however, the insane complexity of it, and the virtual identical nature of 'bebop's light set are copyright infringement. i believe that at what point complexity of data entitles it to copyright protection is debatable in court. so if i take the default poser lighting, rotate the grey light to the right by 10 degrees, it doesnt make it copyrightable. but there comes a point where the data becomes so complex that it canot be reproduced by mere coincidence. just like literature. i can write a sentence. its not copyrightable. 'the little red dog ran down the hole after the rabbit'. i cant copyright that, because its so simple that millions of people could coincidentally string together the same words. however, if i write a poem, or a novel, they are HIGHLY copyrightable, because the likelihood of someone reproducing that exactly lessens with each word added. cheers, -gabriel

'Yet an abusive law permits this.' this isnt a debate about whether or not we should change copyright law. at least give me and my issue the fucking respect not to use it as some test-case for your debates on wether or not this law should be in place. the fact remains that given the complexity of the data it IS copyrightable, and bebop redistributing it as warez is both illegal and morally and ethically wrong.

I have ONE thing to say... Can't we all get along? C'mon people, if we keep arguing and saying that "this" "that" or the "other thing" isn't safe from someone taking it, ripping it apart, repackaging it and calling it an "original work" we are going to drive people from wanting to create original work and WE are the ones at a loss, NOT them. We can't sit by and let someone blatently and maliciously rip off another artists work. I strongly suggest you remove your head from your arse and wake up. What's next? A combination of textures isn't a copyrightable thing because eventually someone could come up with something similar. (After all there are only so many color combinations out there.) That is just a rediculus idea because once the first stroke of the mouse or pen goes down it becomes YOURS. That is no different than a setting of 24 lights. The arrangement, specifications, angles, rotations, color setttings, shadow and shadow map settings is a tangiable piece of work and as such belongs to BlackHearted. It is damned near impossible that one person could come up with a SET identical to this one on their own. I'm also sure that BeBop or one of his many alter ego's is sitting back reading this thread laughing his ass off because people are STILL talking about it. BeBop was banned, BlackHearted wasn't. THAT speaks volumes about the situation in and of itself. Let the subject die and let's move on. There are bigger and better things that we can ALL be doing than dredging old news back up. BlackHearted, your gracious and more than professional stance on the issue continues to amaze me. You are a wonderful person and your work still continues to keep me in awe of what can actually be done. Don't stop! So let's go do something else with our times, there's much art to be had...go, pose, render, postwork and HAVE FUN! Now back to my regularly scheduled nap Kymm

Thanks Blackhearted, I will accept that as an insult. I have so far in this thread agreed with your right to be angry about what Bebop has done, also I've agreed that there is a highly slim to ridiculous chance that anyone could stumble on your precise light settings with that number of lights in that number of scene sets. I stated that the evidence VS posted is condemning. Yet for some reason you seem to assume I'm saying you're wrong. Well bollocks to you pal. I have and do question the right of anyone to copyright the finite dial settings available in a program like Poser 4, same as I question the right to copyright poses. However you've ignored this side of things, ignored the example I set above regarding the number of chances across the number of lights, call me thickheaded, and challenge me. I suggest you read again Post 24. You seem to have missed some fundamental points. There is a high chance I could exactly replicate one light setting. There is a very slim chance I could replicate 25, there is a virtually ridiculous chance of me ever replicating 6 sets of 25 lights exactly. Do pay attention, I might not know you, I might not give a flying duck about you, but I have been agreeing with you just not on the copyright issue as this has far greater implications to the poser community than your light sets. However, I'll take your thickheaded comment and go away to find somewhere I can have it thinned a bit. Perhaps next time you'll think about it before you have a go at someone in your corner. BTW, poems and novels are not limited by software, only imagination. Poor comparison.

I once 'created' a universe of super heroes based loosely on Marvel and DC characters that I wanted to use and feel free to kill off. Among them (just by way of example), was a character called Flag, based on Capt. America. He carried a shield and wore a costume based on the American flag. All of the characters were in a similar vein. The company banner was C I Comics. C I stands for Copyright Infringement. The whole thing was done as a joke and I knew that I could never publish it without getting my whole ass sued. The fact that the end result was a 450 page hand drawn comic book, which obviously took a great deal of work and imagination made absolutely no difference. The whole thing was done for my personal entertainment (strange, but true). Mr Bebop has obviously put far less work into stealing the work of Blackhearted than I did stealing that of Marvel and DC. Does it matter how many characters I copied. No, I don't think so. My saving grace is that I NEVER intended nor attempted to profit by it, or rob others of profit, because that would be THEFT, which is definitely illegal. And don't get me started on the immorality of it. Of course, similarities and coincidences exist. If I write a book in English, I am going to use the same words that other authors have used. But if I simply rename King Lear and try to pass it off as my own work, then I am a THIEF, and can argue the point forever more and still remain a thief. This appears to be the case here. I'm sure that none of this will make any difference to Bebop, but I just wanted to get my 2 cents worth out there.

questor, you notice the little happyface after my comment? "questor, youre being really thickheaded about this :)" that generally means that the comment was meant as a jest. jesus, relax.

No I didn't see that Blackhearted. Sorry. I read the post, read it again, and I really didn't see that. So, I apologise for getting ratty at you. :) (wanders off to get his head thinned and relax.)

That's cool. No need for any nastiness...hehe. Or misunderstandings. BH has most reason to be upset...I salute him for his anger control. Let's not forget one item here, in the discussion about copyrights, intellectual property, etc. And that is there seems to be an identifiable vendetta against BH. Something that R'City has even addressed. THAT alone should let people know that BH has been wronged. So, once again, I salute BH for his self-control.

Simply a list of links is not copyrightable. However, the html code creating that "list of links" can be protected by copyright.

I'm reminded of the Dilbert cartoon where the employees discover they can insult the boss any way they like as long as they preface the remark with the words "with all due respect". "With all due respect sir, the mother that raised you would have drowned nothing." So if I posted "Blackhearted is being really inane here :)" that would be all right with him? :)

"However, the html code creating that "list of links" can be protected by copyright" Sort of. If the link list is in it's simplest form and the data is obviously derived from the links themselves then no you couldn't defend that copyright.

that would be all right with him Well of course it would Phantast, it's got a little happy face attached which means it's just a jest. Sheesh, I thought everyone understood that. (snicker)

"Suppose I'm working in a theatre working with real lights. I light a scene with 20 spots, should I be able to copyright the arrangement and sue a rival theatre if they come up with something similar?" Actually, yes you can...IF you have taken the time to document your light placements, gel usage, intensity ranges, angle settings, and so forth. The precise settings of those 20 spots, as documented by you, are your intellectual property, and that documentation can be copyrighted. Now, will it be worth it for you to try and get out your measuring tools and climb up into the beams in order to verify that they're using your light arrangement? Not likely, and in fact without a court order you're likely to get arrested. Would you get anything out of it if you brought an infringement suit against the theatre? Yah, one (1) headache and one (1) large lawyer bill. As with anything else, there are extremes. Blackhearted's work is not one of them. As his light set plainly and simply is a set of text documents (regardless of the end result), he holds the copyright on those documents, and is entitled to all the benefits thereof. Would he get anything out of a suit against Bebop? Sure would...one (1) headache and one (1) large lawyer bill. :) <---Note the smiley ChromeTiger

Just my thoughts to that coyyright issues here: a preface: Since I live in germany, I do not know the american copyright law, so some things may differ. If you want to see a work to be copyrighted, it need to have some degree of originality or must show some level of skill. Noone would concider it a copyright violation if I repeat a small sentence. I cannot claim copyright for a buying list, or an adress book. In germany we call this level "Schfungshe", which means "Level of creation" or "Quality of creation" . I think you will have a similar concept in US-Law too otherwise I could sue everyone who paints his car silver, because I have done that before. Hiram: I doubt that lighting sets are protected as a literary work. If they are, the author would be a software named poser, not some guy turning some dials. The "literary work" you see there is a generic template, with a few numbers changed. A computer software is written by humans, a pose or light file is NOT. Every light file contains exactly the same templates, there is no creativity in this. I really doubt you can copyright that. Here in Germany, I'm pretty sure you can't. You could not sell copied poses or lights here. This would be "unlauterer Wettbewerb". (unfair business/enterprise) Maybe someone should try to sue someone who is copying pose or light files. It would be intresting if the judge would copyright some dial settings. I doubt that.

Thanks Bantha for the clarification. I'm glad you brought this thread back on topic. As for all the petty hysteria,numerous TOS violations, throwing toys out of the pram and insane accussations above, the less said the better. oops nearly forgot :)

Attached Link: http://www.cyndislist.com/copyrite.htm