Well said, casamerica. As a side note: There are so many misconceptions about copyright law today ( mostly because of the way copyright law is written ) that if you're involved in any dispute over a copyright you should probably ask an attorney who specializes in it. I'm certain that Jenifer Keeling ( Rosity's Copyright Agent ) would agree when I say that telling people the facts about copyrights is one of the most difficult things to accomplish... You're working against common sense and intuition, two things that do not now, nor have ever, factored into the realm of copyright law. ( At least not since 1790, when the first U.S. Copyright Law was signed into action ) Paul

Brycetech, why ' a hard call'? If the hands belong to Posette, then it was a lie to claim that Amy was made from scratch, no matter what percentage is original. Especially after slamming Posette and her creators. As for defamation, I think that started with Amy's advertising. That 50 percent rule is crap. Surely taking something created by someone else, chopping off half of the mesh and adding a new half cannot make the whole thing mine. That is why some things are created in colaboration. When Seigel and Shuster created Superman, niether of them could claim that the creation was wholly his. It was a collaborative effort. If Amy is partly Posette, then Amy's 'creators' should say so. It's called being honest.

lol, my god this place is filled 2 the brim w/ drama!!! the funniest thing is how smallspace got real quiet. he never tried 2 defend himself??? i feel sorry 4 the poor guy, lol, NOT!

come on folks, lets have some fucking decency. dont get me wrong, i am not defending anyone here. nor am i attacking. to be honest, im just too damn busy this week to take part in a lot of discussions like this that dont directly affect me, so im just going to sit on the fence with this issue. but what really upsets me is the lack of maturity in this thread. im watching people cracking jokes and flinging cheap insults and accusations, and at least one person in this thread is having a lot of fun at someone else's expense. this is not a joke, folks - this is serious business. so lets try to keep it mature and professional.

Aboput Smallspace, he has posted an apology here. I can't remember the forum, I've been bouncing around to mcu tonight. I'm still curious about the texture template though. Someone mentioned that it may just be a filled in posette template. Let's see the proof, extract the UVdata from it using either UVMapper or some other tool. Make no changes to it and let us see it.

The apology post is in this forum, a few threads up. It's well written and deserves consideration. Smallspace is most likely not directly involved in this matter, and should really be given the benefit of the doubt. As for the rest, like Gabriel said, it's probably best to handle the matter with maturity.... OTOH, if I spent $50 on a product that turned out to be Posette... Well, that's left unsaid. Paul

In my opinion, one thing I think must be said is that, as Entropic says, the beta testers (including smallspace) should be given the benefit of the doubt, as should Traveller. Trav -gave away- so many hundreds of morphs over the past few years that the mind boggles, and the idea of a deception like this is likely far from his mind. Unlike this "new crew", Traveller has demonstrated trustworthiness time and time again, and most likely didn't think that there was anything to be concerned about when he was asked to make morphs for this figure. The entire burden of this sordid affair should belong squarely on the shoulders of the people who attempted to perpetrate this apparant fraud on the Poser consumer. End of story.

Could somebody post Amy's uvmap? Not a texture - just the template. Lyrra

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=12356&Form.ShowMessage=676217

I am so proud of smallspace and am so glad he wasn't apart of this. I feel bad that he was a victim in this. I have so much respect for his sincerity and honest. Things like this are sad and there is no enjoyment to be had from any of it. But I am glad I everyone was made aware before things got worse. I think Daz and TurboSquid can handle it from here. I don't think we need to do anymore. Anton

To originalplaid: Yes, Posette is the P4 nude woman. DAZ are the original creators of Posette, at the time the company was still a division of Zygote. I suppose they still own the rights to the mesh, even though Curious Labs are now including Posette in the Poser product. To Anton: Thanks for bringing all this up. The community will always benefit from having members that acts with integrity and are not afraid to speak up when they see something that is suspicious. Your actions helped a lot of people (including possibly myself) from getting fooled. Thanks.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=12356&Form.ShowMessage=676217

I am amazed at all this. They are also selling Viewpoint models on their site it would appear. Go see the above thread. http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=12356&Form.ShowMessage=676217

Ok... let's turn the torches down a bit for a moment. I have NO idea if some parts of Amy came from Posette... but clearly some parts did not and that is fairly obvious. I am not accusing or defending... but some thoughts are in order: 1) smallspace is NOT an official spokesperson for IW. So his claim that they are talking to DAZ et al does NOT constitute a lie to us by IW. 2) Of course the Amy model would occupy roughly the same space as Posette - I have no doubt this would be a deliberate effort in order to enable her compatability. 3) TurboSquid is >NOT< IW. They are seperate companies. Not every copyright biolation on the 'squid can be blamed on IW. Obviously IW models ont he Squid are going to be under the microscope. 4) With so much at stake, I am really sort of confused why this announcement didn't wait a day to allow the copyright holders time to get their cases ready. Ah well. Time will tell.

Let us hope that Polartechs model would still be illegal. I will wait for an explanation. I think Amy looks intresting, even if her face is really ugly. I would like to buy her, if all areas with copyright problems are removed. The hands seem to be copied from posette, the rest does not seem to be. That Amy has similar proportions is no sign that she is copied and the mesh looks different to me. If I would model a female model from scratch I would make her similar to posette so there is a chance she could use her clothing. DAZ/CL will propably don't have any chance to copyright her proportions.

Innocent query: I looked at Smallspace's post in the Product Showcare forum, specifically looking for Pamola's post, to see if she stated that Smallspace was not a representative of IW and his opinions were his own, and/or to correct anything he said. It seems like she did not. While I'm sure it would have been good butt-coverage if she had and hopefully would have nipped all of this in the bud, would IW be under any legal obligation to correct those errors in smallspace's statement if they knew about them and were able? Not in some big nebulous what-if universe, but in the forum right there? Again, this is an innocent query. I don't mean to accuse them of not fulfilling any obligations; I'm sincerely curious.

Attached Link: http://digitaldreams.bbay.com

Very intresting development. Before I go any farther, let me say DAZ contacted me about Supermodel Lori (SML), who they felt was a derivative figure, and the end result was that Objaction mover and Vickie are now required to extract her. Here is how SML was made: She is 100% Jim Burton original mesh, she was designed as a low-poly figure, incidently.. Her body was fitted to Supermodel Vickies (SMV), so she could wear the same clothing. Her toes were shrunk wrapped to SMV's mesh. They are just bumps in a solid, sort of like a mitten. She uses SMV's CR2, which is more-or less Vickies CR2 above the knees. Now, my feeling was (and still is) that she is an original figure. SMV's mesh was all (every polygon!) reshaped from Vickie's mesh at the vertex level, no DAZ morphs were used (she predates Vickie II, incidently). Some of it is _major_ reshaping. I feel those (new) locations belong to me, I have no legal rights, of course. So here we go, SML is my shape and my mesh, so it is my original figure, right? Lets say we have Checy car and put a Ford engine in it, still a Checy, right? But how about if we change to a Ford frame and wheels? And then go to a Ford body, too? Is it still a Chevy? But after saying that, it is a tricky question, and I've accepted DAZ's decision on it, I sell at DAZ, after all, I don't want to piss them off, plus SML is free, I'm surely not loosing any money by requiring Vickie, most of the people who would use her have her already. I should also add it was very kind of DAZ to allow me to still distribute her this way, they might be able to do something like this with Amy. Let me also say that I still intend to do my own from-scratch super lady eventually, I'm glad these problems surfaced with SML. I intend to work with DAZ to build a figure that they don't think infringes on their existing hard work.

One thing I would like to see come out of this whole thing is an official line from DazZygote, IW3D on the result of all this so at least the community can get the facts and not the rumour. This could potentialy stop a lot of rumours which could harm reputations of folks who maybe innocently got involved with this and perhaps whom without knowing created a figure very close to the P4 figure.

Good example Jim. Some ideas for your "Super Lady:" Give us lots of add-ons for versatility (like Vicki and Posette;) a high-poly mesh for fine morphing and smooth curves (Dina;) perfect joints and bend-ability (and "anatomically correct" while you're at it, think Natalia and Dina are the winners there with JCM's, but still not perfect, and;) a face/figure that EVERYONE will think is beautiful, but not so beautiful that it "threatens" the other "ladies." ;)

Anton acted as a responsible member of our community by posting this immediately. $50 is not pocket change! They apparently are still selling this model. Are refunds given? Sharing knowledge is what this place is all about. Sure, some folks may want to buy it anyway, but they should be making an informed decision. A well-done derivative model - presented as such - has value, although customers likely would expect a more reasonable price for one. BTW, if I put a model into a layer in Lightwave and trace the mesh (requiring a lot of time and talented work), the new mesh would be 100% "created" by me. If that was legal, there would be zero copyright protection for modelers.

We are writing a formal statement concerning the DAZ copyright and license agreement on the models owned by DAZ. There are a some misconceptions that are being perpetuated the we can clear up in the statement. This statement will be ready later on today.

Thanks to everyone for their interest in this subject.

Sincerely,

Dan Farr
President, DAZ Productions

IMHO the only way there will ever be a final 'word' on anything about who can do what is if its ever 'taken to the mat' and rulings are forced. As a modeller, there are just too many gray areas that need addressed. I mean, lots of models start out as a cube that is extruded and such... so by the roughest definition, that model is a modification of the cube..the cube would belong to the original maker blah blah blah ok, so that's overkill..but you see where this could all end up right? Eventually this kind of thing will be pushed into legality and then there'd be real basis for all the guessing and armchair lawyers out there to say 'you can do this' or 'you cant do that' :) BT

It seems to me that the hand issue has merit, and yet the body and face seem to be from a different mesh. I'm no expert, but this is my highly uninformed opinion.

This has been a very crazy and emotional couple of days for many people. These issues are difficult to deal with and they are no fun for anyone involved. We are very pleased with the flexibility of people in the community as well as their willingness to work together with one another. On a point of interest in the thread that started this, we have communicated with Tom Knight of Imagination Works and are currently working towards an arrangement that will be satisfactory to all parties involved.

As artists, you all understand how you feel about your original creations. DAZ is not a large company and therefore we also are very close to our work and very protective of it. Additionally, as is the case for an increasing number of you, we make extremely significant investments to produce our work and rely on the money they make for our livelihoods.

With this being the case, I think that most people in the Poser community understand what is fair and what is not right in matters of plagiarism or piracy. Still, our work is important enough that we obviously need something more substantial than the golden rule to protect it. This is why we have our End User License Agreement, which you can read in its entirety by looking in the Frequently Asked Questions section of the DAZ3D website. (See the first question, right at the top of the General FAQ page.)

On the other hand, this agreement has been around for a while, and legalese apparently hasnt clarified these issues in many peoples minds. I think that it may be most helpful to take this opportunity to explain publically and in plain terms why we have the End User License Agreement that we do.

As I mentioned, we put considerable resources into creating our products. The value of these products lies in the fact that they are time consuming, expensive and difficult to create. Our goal is to sell this work to others, allowing them to start their projects from where we left off, and allowing us to earn money to live on and to invest in future projects. The problem arises when someone starts from our work, bypassing the investment necessary to get to that point, and then distributes their work in ways that may compete with our own product.

And thats as complicated as our motivation gets. We simply need to ensure that no one can use our work as an unfair advantage to compete with us. And without having to go into the infinite number ways someone can create and distribute derivative work, this explanation should also help to clarify which specific methods of producing and/or distributing your work are permitted.

You may also be interested to know how DAZ typically pursues breeches of our copyright. We regularly contact various artists and websites in order to prevent the distribution of products that are based on work copyrighted to either DAZ or the artists we broker. In the last 2 months alone we have had to have 5 female meshes derived from either Posette or Victoria pulled from distribution. Some of these infringements are obvious, others are often undiscernable to people unfamiliar with the many professional modeling tools and techniques available. (For example, differing polygon count and layout does not necessarily mean a model hasnt been derived from another model.) As a result, we plan soon to add more information to clarify this in the FAQ section of our website.

Our course of action when we find a copyright violation is first to search for an amicable solution. We realize that occasionally people do this unwittingly. Also, we are only interested in protecting our business, not pursuing vendettas. With almost all first time offenses, we are satisfied when the creator of the derivative work simply acknowledges the infringement, is willing to work with us, and removes the files in question from distribution. Furthermore, for such matters we try to conduct our business with offenders on an individual and private level. That being said, we do have copyright and the End User License Agreement backing us up on this, and when its not an option to protect our business in a friendly manner we will go to all lengths necessary to protect our copyright.

Ultimately, however, the success or failure of this market revolves around community support. If any entity has to spend a large percentage of its resources protecting its products rather than developing products, that business will not survive in such a market. We would like publically to thank Anton and others like him who improve this community by acting on their concerns about issues important to all of us. The fact that this community is made up mostly of people who look for ways to support each other and our market, rather than parasites who continuously look for loopholes that damage others, is what makes this such a strong and growing community. (Speaking generally and not reffering to anyone specifically.) We all benefit from such a community.

DAZ wishes to reconfirm our commitment to help grow this community and improve it in any way possible, as well as express our sincerest grattitude for those who have supported our business.

Sincerely,

Dan Farr
President DAZ Productions

applaud Nothing I say would suffice. Well said Dan.

Quick question for Mr. Farr, My new troubleshooters (not released yet) were modeled from scratch in Rhino2. However, they were modeled to be shaped closely to vicky and mike so that their poses can be used with the new figures I made. I did not use any of the original meshes of Vicky and Mike in the Troubleshooters, but rather modeled around them as a guide. The joint perameters of my figures are very close to Mikes and Vickies to make use of their poses. Will this be considered a copyright violation? I have a lot of respect for the work that you good folks at Daz do and I do not want to cause you any extra work investigating my figures. Thanks for any response you can provide. Noel "Styxx" Mollon styxx@sympatico.ca

Hello again. I mentioned in my last message that we would be adding more information to the DAZ website's FAQ section in order to clarify further what is prohibited under the DAZ license agreement. Hopefully this will help. If this does not clarify things completely then please feel free to contact us.

A few quick points that I would like to emphasize: When people use products to create derivatives that then compete against the originals, there is a problem. We welcome the development of products that enhance or diversify our products without circumventing the need to purchase those original products. (For example, we have traditionally allowed the free distribution of .cr2 files for products that won't be devalued by this distribution.) The problems arise when someone uses our work as an unfair advantage to compete with us. As a result we have prohibited these types of actions in the DAZ License Agreement.

Although the DAZ License Agreement only protects DAZ sold products, we suggest that these principles should be applied to everyones products, wherever they are available. If these priciples are not followed then the entire market will suffer. Original creators are penalized, while those selling self-standing derivative works are rewarded. Eventually this creates a disincentive to make original works from scratch. This forces the inovators and developers to look for alternative markets.

Once again, we wish to thank all those who have supported DAZ and the other organizations and individuals in this great community. This symbiosis would not exist without you.

Sincerley,
Dan Farr

P.S. In some cases we make special agreements with artists outside of these guidelines.

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

Imagination Works has posted a response.

With all do respect to DAZ, especially to Mr. Dan Farr... DAZ always have a statement that .bla2 .. a derivative, .. ..bla2 of a product, therefor it can't.... bla2. I think we need more explaining from DAZ in every statements, concerning which one is ok or not. 1. Is the pose, posing characteristic okay or not. 2. Or the close UVmapping system to implement a texture is okay or not. 3. Is a mesh judged by the number of poly's or the shape and the geometry of the model it self.... (and if it is ... how?) 4. More importantly....... who make these rules ? Is the rule totally approved by the patent office or not. This basic stuffs can AVOID judicial probs and furthermore piracy of someone's model.... and more importantly, TO PROTECT the chance and the right of new modelers. Personally, if a model have a very close physical characteristic, but if it's made from scratch and the person can prove it, (maybe show the other party on how they begin the modelling, so FULL documentation is necessary) it have full rights. Since DAZ have been teh parents of poser modelling (for me it is), I, and the public need to know the legal prosecutions of every or at least some major DAZ cases or some formalities in the US patent office or Court. I can't let DAZ be another Bill "hell" Microsoap..... I have too much trust and love in DAZ products, and it's wide ranged products in 3D. And still I want this company to expand more than the current state. concerning, dees.......