Please know that we (at Imagination Works) would never post ANYTHING slamming another artist. SMT has been our Beta tester with Amy since day one, and posted these things because he truly believes in us and what we are capable of providing to the Poser community. He only has our best interest at heart, with no compensation for himself.

I will put up a formal post (ON A NEW THREAD) tomorrow morning, to clear up all of the madness. It should alleviate any fears you might have about us, and/or answer all of your questions.

In the meantime, Tom has corrected all problems with the obj file for Amy, so for those of you who are having any problems, please contact me directly and I will send this file to you via e-mail... immediately.

Thank you for your patience.

Best Regards.
Pam & Tom at Imagination Works

LMAO. This is way too wierd. I've never met you, Anton, but I have to say that it's good to know you're out there... On a side note to Steve Cooper, and anyone else whose had things stolen, if you're watching: The Digital Millenium Copyright Act, enabled by the 105th Congress, under Federal and International Law, makes some pretty broad rights available to content owners ( a.k.a. Copyright Owners ). Among these rights is the right to hold responsible for damages any service provider that hosts or assists in the transfer or infringement of any copyrighted material, knowingly or otherwise, unless: 1. The Service Provider immediately upon notification of the infringement claim removes all infringed materials, and revokes the account of the infringer. ( There is no stipulation that the content owner must provide evidence of the infringement accusation ) 2. The Service Provider must provide freely to the content owner, upon request, all identifying information available about the accused infringer. In return for these requirements, the service provider is exempt from claim or suit brought against them by customers claiming improper removal of data or improper termination of the account. In other words, anyone who finds their copyrighted work hosted illegally, can notify the Service Provider to have that work removed, and the violator's account cancelled. If the Service Provider refuses, they are in violation of the DMCA and can be held liable for each transmission of the copyrighted material in civil court. Not legal advice, just a bit of information I thought the merchants could use. Before acting on this information, I would highly recommend discussing with an attorney the validity of your case, the status of your copyright, and the proper procedures necessary in order to assure your case is handled properly. To Steve Cooper, specifically, if you've got a copyright on Posette, you have the legal right to ask TurboSquid's Service Provider to remove all questionable content, stop providing service to them, and immediately give you all information that you require to identify them. While I don't personally advocate the extreme measures that you're legally entitled to take, I'm sure you'll discuss the matter with your attorneys to determine the suitability of your action. Regards, Paul Jenkins

Paul, There is a slight problem with that law. When finding work that infringes copyright you can request that that sight be close if they do not removed the named item. They should also provide you with the information to contact the owner of the site. The owner of the site can contest and therefore have thier site re-instated without intervention by any law enforcment agency. At that point it is up to the copyright holder to persue legal action before any other action can be taken. This actually protects everyone, the original copyright holder, the service provider, and the accused. This is due to the fact that no real proof has been provided and judged at that time. If the item in question is found to be in copyright infringment, the service provider is no longer at fault because they fulfilled thier obligation.

KattMan: Sorry to disagree. Here are some references to the actual statements, revisions, and rulings on the matter: Digital Copyright ( Jessica Litman; George Washington University Law Professor; Published 2001, Prometheus Books ) Digital Millenium Copyright Act ( codified at 17 U.S.C. ss 512 ) Copyright's Highway, The Law and Lore Regarding Copyright from Gutenberg to the Celestial Jukebox ( Paul Goldstein; Published 2001, Hill and Wang Press ) The actual law seems somewhat strange, particularly if you consider what it does to considerations of reasonable doubt and burden of proof, but if you're familiar with the raging battles over content owner's rights versus ISP responsibilities, you should be able to make sense out of it. Paul

Side Note: I;m not saying by the way that the law is right or wrong in this case, simply stating what the law says. There are currently a lot of misconceptions about copyright law that the generl public can't get past simply because they don't make a lot of sense. In fact, the only people who can generally make sense out of copyright law are copyright lawyers. The DMCA alone was a 50 - page 30,000 word draft. Most of it makes reference to earlier referendums and laws, such as the White Paper ( published by the Lehrman Group ) and the 1976 revisions of the 1909 Berne Convention redevelopment and reinstatement of the 1909 CopyrightAct. In other words, please don't take offense at my rebuttal, it's not personal. I stand by my statement because it's backed up by over 15 resources, two law professors, and congressional mandate. Paul

Good thing to know that I'm not the only one that noticed that the response to the accusations said absolutely NOTHING about the accusations? One lie has been perpetrated already, that they were in contact with DAZ about the model. How many more will be perpetrated as they continue to peddle their warez? And what will they say about that lie? Considering the accusation thread, and maque's thread below... this company with "10 years experience" is of dubious legal standing... and if they do have 10 years experience, have totally thrown away any credibility they may have ever had, if any.

Entropic - Are you licensed?

Frisketus: No. I hope I didn't give the impression that I am a copyright lawyer. The fact is, I attended law school for a very brief time, and found it wasn't to my liking. Currently, I'm doing an intensive amount of research for an article I'm writing on copyright issues for digital artists, which will likely be a regular column due to the incredible volume of information. In that research I've spent countless hours reading through books on copyright law, congressional memoranda, etc. and have been in consultation with a few law professors who are pretty good about explaining things. Hence: Nothing I say should be taken as legal advice, but if you need help with something, I can usually point you in the right direction. Paul

When they use the term "madness", they might be referring to their accusers, since people rarely talk about themselves that way. Any statement they make about specific items is risky, because it may make things worse for them, even if they run it past their lawyers first. My question is: aside from the details of this case, what are our merchants, DAZ and Curious planning to do about other reports of infringing Poser-related items being sold at the marketplace in question?

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=12356&Form.ShowMessage=683662