Attached Link: http://www.poserpros.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3922&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

You do need to read the whole thread, if this is the thread I'm thinking it is. CL has mentioned that no, they don't own Mike or Vicky, or any other character. They only own the file format. Much like Wavefront owns the .obj format, etc. They are just trying to protect themselves from a competitor that could then use the .cr2 file directly in their program. Good business sense if you ask me.

"Karen Weissman of Stanford law has convinced me that, in fact, the information within a cr2 is not protected, as it does not specifically count as a work of authorship. The description of information within a cr2 is similar to a recipe, describing the process by which the mesh is modified by Poser. As you know, processes are not copyrightable." Therefore, by extension, CL does not own, nor can enforce ownership of the cr2 files (and most likely the format); nor, extensibly, any file that is merely a "recipe". Since this is merely a "process" which cannot be owned, CL is no further above the law than any other entity. See the following link: http://www.loc.gov/copyright/fls/fl122.pdf

yes, the thread must be read to the end. good business, yes, but, wouldn't that make them the owners of all cr2s, even if folks actually made new cr2s from scratch?

This does have ramifications for me, but I do believe I fall into fair use. The P-Wizard, as with many utilities out there, work with editing or even creating new CR2's. With this in mind these applications are writing a format that is restricted. Now here is where fair use comes in. These applications are not using that format for thier own purposes but rather for the inhancement of poser itself. This walks a thin grey line in the use of copyrighted formats but still maintinas the spirit of the EULA. It is not like MS Word using the format of another word processing program to take over the usage of that format for direct competition. These applications do not directly compete with Poser. Now if we created another figure rendering application and used the CR2 format we would be in direct competition and could not do so without paying some for of fee. It is interesting though when you really get into the guts of the CR2 format. I look at it as two parts. There is the basic OBJ format embedded within the CR2 format. With this in mind I would think that CL is only copyrighting the addition to the OBJ format rather then the entire CR2 format itself.

Poppi, Think about MS Word files. MS owns the format of the Word files but does not actually own the content. That content, whether it be a letter, novel, poem or whatever remains the property of the author. The format itself, no longer a process but a final design, is what is copyrighted. This gets us into what CyberStretch said. The format itself can be copyright, the method od creating that format can not. The format is a final product but the method in which it is written is not, that is the process. This is still an area in it's legal infancy and what may seem to apply in one case may not seem to apply in another. It will only be when things go to court that these types of copyrights will actually be determined. Hopefully this will never happen as people should use a little bit of professional courtesy when dealing with things of this nature.

Attached Link: Stewing in Texas

What people seem to be missing is that cr2 files are only useful in poser, yes there are some apps about that read & write cr2 but they are addons for poser, the whole point is that the EULA says cr2 files cannot be used in programs that are in competition with poser. Why would CL want to destroy the user base of their flagship program? If they stop people creating & distributing cr2 files to other poser users then they will be killing their company as people will not want poser & then they'll be saying goodbye to their company. Rob

I do so love to repeat things :) when can we get edit post function on here?

KattMan, Actually, by reading the PDF at the link I supplied (but did not HTML edit so it could be easily followed) it states that only recipes that have a substantial artistic/literary component may be copyrightable and only those portions that are artistic/literary in nature might be protected by copyright. Therefore, in the case of CR2 files, the only information contained within the file itself is an instruction set (aka a "recipe" or "process") which Poser reads and produces the final output (aka the "figure" or "character"). My interpretation would lend me to believe that neither the CR2 nor the file format may actually be copyrightable; therefore no one - including CL - can claim copyright protection for CR2 files. (And, by extension, any other file/format that is merely a "recipe" or "process".) However, I am interpreting this as a layman and not a lawyer, and a court case would most likely be the only authorative method of applying/interpreting the law to this particular case.

This would be very similar to the GIF format I believe. All CL is saying is that they own the structure and format, which since they created it.. They do. This whole thing is setup so that competitors or products that directly compete with poser would have to pay a license fee to use the CR2 format; and that's if that would even be an option. It's set up now to protect them possibly in the future. This I don't believe will effect editors and such like P-Wizard. I can't see CL knocking on the doors of their fan base since they have created the most amazing applications to work with (Not against or competing) Poser. Tom

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?Form.ShowMessage=858183

Thanks Tom, that's what I was trying to get at in my own semi illiterate way ;) Rob

I'm going to finalize my own issue here with my own experiance with CL and copyright issues. After this I may not post again. This could also help you see just how good a company CL is. Back during first release of the P-Wizard it went by another name. This name was Poser Wizard. Now due to the name Poser being used, Steve Cooper himself contacted me, not his lawyers, not his staff but he himself. To summerize, after a few e-mails and phone calls over the course of only 2 days we both gladly agreed to just change the name. We agreed that the Poser name was a registered trademark for his company and that I should be able to release my utilities. They prefer not to play hardball and will take the path of least resistance and not cost either part additional cash. This ended up helping us both, and Steve actually apologized for needing to request that change but felt that he needed to protect CL's interest in the trademark. So even with thier claim of owning the CR2 format, I highly doubt that they will enforce it if it is used in a non-competing manner.

I remember that well KattMan,pretty much the same thing happened with PBooost, the name changed but the program is still alive, & that was without resorting to lawyers & legal crap :)

The distinctions between the two is that of Trademarks vs Copyrights. Both are legal issues, but cover vastly different areas of interest. The Trademark laws are quite specific and there is extremely little left to interpretation. Copyright laws, on the other hand, are quite explicit, but are highly misunderstood; lending themselves to more controversy and discussion. All parties must protect their own interests and in a way that falls within the confines of the law; with an acceptable legally binding agreement (aka EULA in this case) that affords any party due protection and remedies. I think that this is the basis of much of the discussion on the Copyright claims and problems stemming from the EULA as it is presently published.

Funny how Daz's position with the tailor is the same as the one they deplore from CL now... This has been brewing for a long time. We are the only ones who can help here. It is we, the consumer who must be the voice of reason and try to bridge the gap between these two former partners. Q PS: Daz, revealing confidential information was small and weak of you. I don't care what your motives were.

Cyberstretch, as you said before a recipe can not be copyrighted, but the format is copyrightable and that is what CL is protecting. in any case I dont think anyone has anything to wory about if you read the pertanent sections of the EULA section J of the EULA gives full right of distribution to the original creator. section A defines restricted content section J defines the right of content creators to use that restricted content for distribution. Its quite clear to me that CL has already given the right to distribute their CR2 format. and all the formats for hair, props, clothing, etc.

Well, I view this all from a slightly different angle. The only situation I can imagine in which anyone would actually want or need to use the CR2 format, other than for developing utillities that make up for features not found in Poser itself, is one in which a user wants to use Poser content natively in another program. In this case it would be much better to use the native format of that program to gain the size and feature advantages. For example, Victoria saved natively in Lightwave with 5 full body morphs from Poser used as Endomorphs is only 1.6 megs compared to the victoria 2 CR2 which is over 20mb. Add to that the use of skelegons, etc and there is a definite advante to not using the CR2 format. This really just seems more like carefull legal consideration of of CL's assets than a "business strategy" of any kind. Being carefull usually pays off.

quixote said: "Funny how Daz's position with the tailor is the same as the one they deplore from CL now... This has been brewing for a long time." Could someone clarify this for me? Because I can't make sense of this statement. Wasn't the issue with the Tailor about morphs transfer and reverse engineering to make a Vicki2 out of Vicki1 by using an item of clothing with Vicki2 morphs to transfer those morphs to Vicki1 and other similar processes such as making a new figure shaped like Vicki with use of the tailor and other such program devices? What does that have specifically to do with the cr2, other than the morphs and geometry shape information contained therein? Wasn't the issue more about the figure's base shape and its morphs being copied? Would like some clarification on the relevance of that statement. Maybe there is some, but without more info it looks sketchy. Elaborate, please.

The DAZ incident was about content. The CL incident (P5 EULA) is about the format in which this content is stored. Between them they should all have all bases covered. :P In both cases the firms assert that they only want to protect their legitimate interests and the Poser community doesn't have anything to fear. This is most probably true. But ... I still have this nagging feeling ... maybe unfounded ...

The thing that no ones seems to have touched on, is as nice as Steve and the rest of CL are, they ARE a business and will use any means necessary to protect said business. And no matter how many times someone from CL says "we aren't silly enough to do that" it is still written in the EULA, therefore enforcable in a court of law. The argument that "so and so said it was ok in the Renderosity forum" is so NOT going to cut it in a court of law. By opening that seal, you are bound by the included written rules. Same goes for any product you buy. I just got my shipping order confirmation not 10 minutes ago. When P5 arrives, I'll not open it until a definitive, legal statement is made by CL. I paid over $700 AU for P5 and I'll be damned if I'm wasting that on a product that takes away my rights as a developer - if that is indeed the case here.

nicely put, xena. what folks don't seem to understand is: of course, cl wants to have friendly relations with its clientele databank...and that is what we all are. however, business is business, and, if you all aren't sitting down at the cooper household for dinner on a regular basis...you best believe that you are not really "friends". i have a little craptaceous business. sometimes i have to tell "half truths". i don't like that, but...business is business. if you don't have it in writing...no, a forum counts about as much as making a statement in a parking lot...it isn't binding. we were gonna get p5 for me at work....but, not until there is a clarification. as much as i would love to play in the face room with don and judy....i don't want to give away any of the rights i have with p4.

For those interested, I recently posted a comparison between actual verbiage from the US Copyright Laws and some conflicting EULA provisions. I figure one would be hard-pressed to get any more "direct" than the "letter of the law" itself. :0) Hopefully, if nothing else, this will show that there are legitimate objections to and serious flaws within the EULA and not just rabid ramblings of speculation.

Cyber, where did you post that?

I'll see if I can find the post and post a link...

Attached Link: US Copyright Law vs EULA

Thanks for letting me know. Hopefully I will find out why it was moved to an "inappropriate" forum concerning the topic matter.

Not that an attorney should have an opinion on the EULA, but if people would read it closely, they will discover that it will have far less effect than most of the members I've seen write about it think it does. The EULA does refer to CL's file formats as proprietary, but does so in the context of saying that certain files included in P5 are deemed to be "restricted content." Does CL have rights to the CR2s of Don, Judy, etc.? Of course, just as DAZ does with the geometry of the Millenium figures (which of course were created prior to the new EULA, so no real EULA issue there). Also similar to DAZ, section J of the Content Distribution section of the EULA permits commercial creation of Morph Targets, characters, textures, hair, props, etc. As for DAZ, I note that they created content for P5, and I don't think that they are so stupid at DAZ as to have not protected their business in the process.

The mere fact that so many people have questions about the EULA is a clear indication that it needs to be re-worked and re-worded. This is not the only Poser-related site/forum that is going through the same "discovery process" and trying to figure out the legality and implications of the EULA.

If I understand law correctly, in order for a contract of any type to be legally binding, it has to be read, understood, and agreed upon by both parties. If there are any abiguities in the contract, the chances are that any claims made against that contract will be dismissed. Hence, this is one of the reasons that minors and people with learning disabilities (ie, people who do not have an adequate level of intelligence, grasp, or interpretation of the law) cannot engage in a contractual agreement without the consent of a legal guardian.

I do not think that anyone is stating that CL, DAZ, or any other commercial entity does not have certain rights or obligations to protect their intellectual property, or whatever commodity they offer. However, when a legally binding document is written in such a manner that the interpretation can be misconstrued, it only leads to confusion and possible litigation over misunderstandings that could be avoided by a simple re-issuance of the document.

The concerned parties, in this case mostly the consumers, are trying to rectify the ambiguities by prompting the company(-ies) in question to divulge and explain the interpretation and point-of-view in which the document was written. Relying upon admissions of "faith" and non-binding statements could potentially cause undue hardships for those that rely upon them. Therefore, clarification and discussion is definitely warranted.

<<If I understand law correctly, in order for a contract of any type to be legally binding, it has to be read, understood, and agreed upon by both parties. If there are any abiguities in the contract, the chances are that any claims made against that contract will be dismissed.>> With all due respect, you do not understand contract law correctly...at least not entirely correctly. The plain language of the document is binding, regardless of whether one party later claims not to understand it (of course, the legal status of shrink-wrapped licenses is another issue entirely). Accordingly, in the event of a claim being made under the EULA, the user probably would argue that it is ambiguous, as you suggest. However, the existence of an ambiguity does not necessarily result in the dismissal of an action, though it generally means that a court would construe the ambiguous language against the drafter (in this case, CL). Yet there are other general rules for interpreting contracts, one of which is that more specific terms trump more general terms. As noted in my prior post, Section J of the Content Distribution section of the EULA clearly and specifically authorizes many, many authorized uses of the otherwise restricted content. The only issue I've seen raised that seems legit from a user standpoint is development or use of a third-party "helper app," but even in that case, I have yet to see one that actually would, or even could, cause competition to P5. Also, if someone like kupa makes reassuring statements now, people who rely on them can argue estoppel an argument from equity recognized in every court of which I am aware. Indeed, reliance on such statements might even be viewed as a modification of the original agreement. Of course, a broad EULA would be extremely helpful if CL wants to funnel all third-party development through the Content Paradise feature...(did that stir everyone up?)

Kbade: Yeah, I think that did stir some people up, but there are other concerns that people have also that everyone can discover as they read the various forum posts. I look forward to reading your post, CyberStretch. Wondering what it says. I think it boils down to the customers wanting the EULA clear enough so that they know their rights under the agreement clearly and never have need to fear that a court of law could ever be an issue according to their clear understanding and agreement to the EULA.

Oh, let me add my encouragement, once again, that people read the EULA carefully, for themselves, more than once.

considering most of the big sites have already signed up to be part of the Content Paradise doesn't that mean this fuss over the EULA is pointless, people say "what if I want to sell somewhere else?", sorry guys but there is no somewhere else left. Rob

considering most of the big sites have already signed up to be part of the Content Paradise doesn't that mean this fuss over the EULA is pointless how do you know who is and is not signed up for content paradise? just curious, is all.

yeah ok I'm guessing, but why would any site who wants to stay in business not sign up?

because they don't want to support a monopoly? I don't know, just guessing. The CP is not a big concern for me anyway, just trying to better understand others' concerns with it and see if there is any validity to their concern. At present, I don't know after reading most everything most everyone has said on the issue. Still watching and waiting.

Curious Labs has always had the last word when it comes to selling/giving away content. The Eula changes every time a new release of poser comes along, this is no different from poser4 or even poser1, they just put exactly in writing what has been in place since version 1.

From some replies of Dan Farr over at PoserPros I gather DAZ has not signed up for content paradise.

The issue is control of the product. If I create Alice in Poserland, the new Vic and have her fitted for P5 and its Face room by, lets say Egisys and pay $30,000, does Egisys own part of my model? do they get royalties on the sale? Do I lose control over my creation (at least in part)? They own the process, the method, just like Daz owns Vic and Mike. Don't they? How about the hair and cloth. They are no longer props. Are there special, legal definitions for these new processes? and how could that effect creators and distributors? Q

yeah but it's an old issue that's been around since version 1 of poser, Curious Labs have control & always have had, the new EULA wasn't a big change, it was just the old jargon that was written years ago reworded into 21st century English so we could all understand it I don't pretend to know what effect it will have, I wish I did. I'm still waiting for my delivery & I'll use poser till the time comes when there's no more poser community, hopefully that won't be for a long time. Rob

so we could all understand it? Then what is the debate about? scratches head in puzzlement A lot of people must not be able to understand 21st century English, including myself, and I was always so good at English in school. I guess I have a lot ot learn about my first language.

allegedly reworded so we can all understand it then :) I think I'm going to give up saying anything for a while, lets just see what happens like with the Daz fiasco.

I am not 100% sure (our resident laywers may be able to clarify) but I do not think that a company has the right to restrict trade/commerce to any particular venue. My main issue with the EULA is not the provisions themselves (except where in direct contrast to the law), but moreso clarifying abiguities so both parties are adequately protected and have a firm understanding of where each of their interest and participation lies. Until these areas of concern are addressed, I think that the majority of users who either do not necessarily care about these concerns or who hold a strong sense of loyalty to CL will buy; yet many others will simply choose not to. It does all boil down to personal choice and there are other alternatives available. No matter how minimal, you cannot deny that adverse effects have already resulted from these policies and practices. You would think that a small company that is struggling to make a name for itself would be more attendant to the cares and concerns of their consumers. However, they, too, have the right to conduct business as they see fit; even to their own detriment.

Restraint of trade and antitrust issues are even more technical than questions of contract law. How does one define the market? Is it the market for: Poser content; character creation and animation programs; or the 3D graphics market? It was that aspect of the EULA that seemed most questionable to me upon first reading. Specifically, Section G of Content Distribution, which bars uses that could cause competition with the Program...who draws that line, and where? For example, should Victoria 3 be considered competition to the Program (which is defined in the EULA to include not only the app, but also the CR2 file format), or should it be viewed as a product which makes P5 more marketable? Past posts by kupa and other CL folk show that they have held the latter view. Accordingly, it would be difficult for CL to adopt a different position, even if they wanted to, as no one wants to be in a deposition, or sitting on a witness stand, and be confronted with past inconsistent statements. Moreover, I would repeat my prior opinion (fwiw) that sections A & J permit so many uses that the language about the proprietary file formats is included to prevent the development of a direct competitor to P5. Indeed, to digress momentarily, I would note that most intellectual property disputes don't wind up in a full-blown court case. If for some reason CL thought someone was or might be infringing on their rights, the first step would likely be a letter or e-mail from an attorney. Such disputes might well be resolved without a lawsuit. Also, to allay quixote's concerns, I would note that section J specifically states that users may create props, hair and clothing for sale and distribiution; each is expressly listed, and not identified by reference to a particular file type. I'm sure I probably come off as more trusting of CL than most on this issue, which is unusual, given that I am a lawyer (albeit one who almost never has to argue a case I don't agree with). However, my general assumption is that the EULA was written by a lawyer for CL. And lawyers are used to reading this sort of document and thus probably do not find it as much of a chore as people who actually contribute to society (half-kidding there). And while it would be better if the EULA was written in plainer English, the fact is that many states require insurance policies to be written in plain English -- a requirement that has had little or no affect on the amount of lawsuits involving their interpretation. In urging people to read the EULA closely, particularly how much is specifically allowed, I would ask people to put themselves back to the first time they dabbled with a 3D graphics app, whether it was Poser or something else. Remember the learning curve involved? Again, I will agree in a second that there shouldn't have to be a learning curve for reading a software license...but there generally is. I also look at how much more readable the rest of the P5 manual is in comparison to the P4 manual. Maybe CL can get a writer like Nosfiratu to work with its lawyer next time they need to draft their EULA. For now, as noted above, it's a matter of consumer choice. I give CL credit for having published the new EULA in advance of the product rollout, so that prospective buyers were at least able to read it before ordering or receiving the box.

And as if I hadn't blathered on long enough, I'll quickly add that I went back to the PoserPros thread and looked at the unpleasantness between CL and DAZ. According to kupa, DAZ had to pay for them to do work that would make V3 compatible with the Face Room. It seems reasonable to ask for payment for work performed, though the amount is almost always subject to debate. Moreover, though kupa did not mention this, I always thought that the Face Room looked like a variation on things companies like Singular Inversions were doing with apps like FaceGen. Lo and behold, SI is one of the companies contributing to P5...most likely the specially created head based on averaging head scans of about 40 real people. That mesh, and the surrounding tech and R & D is not cheap, and it seems possible (though this is purely speculation now) that SI receives a portion of any fee paid to CL to make sure that a figure works with the Face Room. The greater number of entities involved, the more intellectual property to be monetized, the larger the fees are likely to be.

once upon a time we were a community. we shared with one another, and helped each other grow. i think that was the basis of what made the poser community such a thriving cottage industry. then, money loomed its head. sites split up. great places like poserworld/fairie woods became subscription sites. renderosity's vendors became the basic policy makers of this site. galley posts, at least in poser became "vicki in the temple"...oh, the m&D approved temple of the week. our galleries started to suck....and, on into infinitum. from all this wonderful new content we...the serious folks...got...daz putting up restrictions on anything that might compete with vicki, mike, and their daz clothing. and, now...cl...with the new eula that is worse than the daz one. so long, my friends. i think the powers in the poser world will bring down this house of cards that they have built with our love, and, earnest efforts. sites like this one, 3dcc, poserpros, runtimedna...will fall down to bandwidth costs, due to the new greed in the overall market.

Nothing to do with the fees, I think. More with control, as I stated above, kbade. I'm too tired to go on tonight. My main concerns are: 1. Give us examples of what is acceptable and what isn't CL. We're visual people. 2. Don't play me Daz. Don't leek confidential information acquired in the process of your negotiations with CL in an attempt to enlist this Community's help in said negotiations. 3. Why should we trust you now with our confidential information, after you pulled this sort of stunt on a partner. Shameful. Q

Poppi, Great post. I agree with your assessment of the "nature of the beast".

kbade, No offense intended, but a serious question: As a legal professional, since you appear to have a command of the law and are seemingly assured of the EULA and its legality, would you be willing to offer your services for free for anyone who would run into disputes regarding the EULA based off your legal opinions?

Dear Poppi, There is some truth to what you post, but I don't see the demise of the poser community in the near future. Dear Community, What I see is the ground being cleared and foundation planned for new policy and maybe a new direction to be established. How that policy gets established really is in the power of we the consumers, because if we don't buy, the companies fail. Small communities, in the beginning can be a lot of fun and feel so warm and fuzzy, but, without expansion, they wither and die eventually. We have gone through recent stages of expansion, finally, but now we have to decide as a community if these expansions are the way we want to go. If not, we need to make it known so that policy we can live with will then be established. There are still a lot of great things added to the free stuff sections, much along the lines of the great things before. It happens in waves of quality, for a while a bunch of junk and then a sudden infusion of generosity. It has always been thus. Some sites have gone to subscription, but they've kept their costs reasonable. Other completely free sites bud up to replace them. These are natural stages of development. The more community members, the more conficts, but still we have to grow to stay into being and deal with the subsequent changes that occur. It is the nature of the beast. I hope everyone will see the good that I still see in this community and work to make policy that will allow this community to continue to grow. If it grows too big, heh, there is the natural possibility of warm fuzzy subcommunities developing once again, if that is what you miss. Can it grow that big, sure, but it all depends on the will of this cummunity. Okay, off the soapbox now. That was fun. Regards, Mab, the fairy queen