There is an article in the latest Renderosity Magazine Issue 3 about Copyright Issues. In this article two contentions are made that I have a problem with. Now let me say to begin with that Renderosity.com was smart enough to put a disclaimer about this article on the front of the mailer that came with the magazine. Basically they state the article is the opinion of the author only. And that the article is intended as the starting point of discussions. So here goes a discussion.

The first contention from the article that I disagree with the most strongly is that Poses are the property of Curious Labs. This is ridiculous! The article's argument is that there is a limited number of poses for any given figure, therefore a pose is copyrightable. Well gee, there is a limited nubmer of keystroke combinations on a keyboard, but nobody owns what I type but me. There are a limited number of colors displayable on a computer screen, but noone owns the colors. So if someone poses a figure sitting, that sitting pose now belongs to Curious labs, and nobody can sit in that position. If the author meant to say that Curious labs owns the format of the pose file, that is one thing. but you can't own a pose, no more than you can own a constellation. What if someone creates the exact same pose in another character animation package? Is CL going to sue?

The second Assertion made in the article that I don't agree with concerns Lighting. Again it is said that CL owns the light settings. Hogwash I say! Remember what I said about colors? Red, Green, Blue. Intensity. Falloff. All used in about 2000 other applications. Can not be copyrighted.
I would think that Merchants that sell pose sets or light sets would be very interested in this. Please leave your comments. I hope this sparks a calm rational discussion. And if opposing arguments can be made, I would love to hear them. Thank you.

CL states in the P5 EULA that poses and lights can not be copyrighted. All that the author is doing it stating their reasons for this. I'm not sure I agree with it and I see a HUGE can of worms about to spill out from this stance. CL's stance may be correct legally; I don't know. Yes, it goes against common sense. Unfortunately, common sense, law, and justice have little to do with each other. There's been a huge debate on this at PoserPros. (I think it's over 700 posts now.) I don't claim to be a lawyer, so I haven't entered the debate. Sigh Time to kick back in a comfy chair with some popcorn and watch the debate again.

.

actually, I DO own a contellation...the big dipper is mine.

constellation even

Welcome to the future cyberpunks...

You mention colors not being copywritable because many programs use them. This is true. Poser light sets, in particular, are not used in anything other than Poser. I think it mainly boils down to this: you can not copyright settings of a feature that is completely native to the program. The light settings can not be used in any other program. If you could add original lighting, then you could copyright those. How could you enforce a copyright on a set of settings? It is possible, and probable, that someone would duplicate the settings completely at random. If you were the one to do this, would you like a copyright suit brought against you even though you had no prior knowledge of these settings? That doesn't mean you can't sell your settings, you just can't copyright them as it would be unenforcable.

As an aside, I don't believe that CL states that they own the particular setting. They are just stating that NO ONE can copyright the settings, including CL.

The EULA actually states that the camera, light settings etc. can't be copyrighted, not that CL themselves own the copyright. There is a history behind this statement (the Bebop/Blackhearted dispute, when one party asked CL this question directly), but only issue that was directly addressed was actual (individual) parameters settings. A point I made at PPs was that the P5 EULA refers to "light settings" NOT "light sets". Despite the similarity in spelling, these are not the same thing at all. The best way to demonstrate this distinction is with a literary analogy. Obviously you cannot copyright letters or words - these basically correspond to the individual parameter dials and individual lights. However (and this is, of course a great part of copyright law) you can copyright a (creative) work of literature, even though it is entirely composed of non-copyrightable elements. Furthermore any translation into another language is also covered by the same copyright, even though the words, grammatical structure and even alphabet may differ. Believe me, if CL provided a sub-library of light sets that corresponded directly (and statedly) to, for example, some of the equivalent content of 3D Studio Max, they would be in serious legal trouble. Companies exercise copyright on their own creative effort as it adds value to their own products, and it seriously wouldn't matter what CL's own lawyers had predetermined, nor would it matter that there would probably be no direct correspondance between the parameter settings in the two formats. So far as I am aware there has never actually been a court case regarding light sets, or the equivalent, so it remains a grey area until such a time as it is really tested. However until that happens, I would go by the assumption that copyrights claimed on light sets probably can be enforced, and should certainly be treated as if they hold some legal weight. Bill

Cross posted with you there, Jcleaver. It is, incidently, possible to produce an entirely identical light set (or for that matter any creative work) so long as you can prove that you did, in fact do it entirely independently. The problem is, of course, proving it, and if you cannot clearly do that, then the presence of significant similarities can be taken as proof of the opposite. Again it is not actually the individual words, settings, brush strokes or pigmentation that are actually breaching copyright themselves, these only represent the proof that the creative work as a whole or part has been plagarised. Bill

In the abstract, the question of whether poses and lighting can be copyrighted is a bit knotty, more so for poses than lighting. The "light sets" vs. "light settings" issue aside, the P5 EULA may resolve much of the problem by stating that they are not copyrightable. Users operating under the EULA may be bound not to attempt registration or enforcement of any copyright that might exist in those items.

a comment on Brycetechs post... these adds that float around saying you can have a star named after you (or loved one) is total and absolute BS and the company is just taking your money. The name is not recognized by ANY repeat ANY national or international astronomy organization (excepting the people that sold you the BS). The IAU (international astronomical union) is THE international governing body of astronomy and it is THEY who choose the "official" names that goes on star charts. Now if YOU made a discovery and submitted it to the IAU, you get to choose a name for it, but they can over-ride it if it isn't in the best interest of astronomy I believe Brycetech is just BS'ing around, but thought I'd post that tidbit of info as an astronomer. I think I'll copyright musical notes... no more music without paying me first. ya wanna D flat ?? gotta pay up. C sharp ... oh thats gonna cost. just think how many notes are in a single piece of music and how much music is made every day. LOL

Someone once suggested to John Lennon that the Rolling Stones' "Miss You" sounded very much like an uptempo version of his "Scared," and wondered if Lennon was thinking about suing. Lennon replied, "There are only 13 notes." (which is certainly arguable, but you get the point).

not bs'ing at all I do own it...and just to prove it, I'll turn it off tonight

Well, brycetech, I'd hate to have your electric bill. *8-) I thank many of you for your statements. I guess the problem I have with the article is that the author contends the opposite of what many of you have said. He states that CL "owns all poses that can be produced by their software." That is quite a statement. Many of you say that CL's EULA states that poses can't be copyrighted; but is owning them and copyrighting them necessarily the same? BTW, the above quote is from Renderosity Issue 3 (C) 2002 Bondware Inc. and is used for review and discussion purposes only. 8)

spoken in true legaleeze and doublespeak (Orwells 1984) LOL my niece is going over to the dark side... studying corporate law at Oklahoma (OU)

didn't have this "discussion" already in the Poser Forum & over at Poser Pros & pretty much everywhere else?

should say "didn't WE have this discussion"

Why, did someone copyright it? ;]

yeah me ;) I copyrighted the word discussion too while I was at it.

Lol!

"I thank many of you for your statements. I guess the problem I have with the article is that the author contends the opposite of what many of you have said. He states that CL "owns all poses that can be produced by their software." This may have been improperly stated in the article. The proper statement I wished to make is that Curious Labs owns all Lighting, Camera, and Pose FILES. I maintain frm research that you cannot copyright your lighting, camera, or pose files. Curious Labs owns the file format and the file content. They do not restrict distribution, and never have. Whether this is actually the case you may feel free of course to debate, research, etc. Whether this parallels Curious Labs policy or not, this is not a representation of their stance, but only the legal interpretation I have made from multiple sources. At no point do I believe I state Curious Labs owns a pose or a light or a color. I stand by my contention, however, that they own all rights to pose and light files. Regards, Paul Jenkins

"They do not restrict distribution, and never have." Should read: They do not restrict distribution of your created light or pose files, and never have. Paul

Hi Paul, thanks for stopping by and clarifying your thoughts on this discussion to the forum :)

I second that firefly. We really appreciate you taking the time to stop by Paul. It is always a pleasure to see you posting to the Mag Forum. I thought your article was very well written. deemarie

Thank you for your response Entropic. I think that is the clarificaion I was looking for. The portion of the article as printed seemed unusually restrictive and I wanted to find out the thoughts of individuals who would be affected by these interpretations. I enjoyed the article, it was eye-opening.

Well now I'm curious about how you all feel with regards to the Poser EULA? Do you feel confident in the ability to market your creations without problem or precedent?

I do, or else I wouldn't be using Poser 5 and making products. ;) Something interesting to consider, btw, is that for a long time there were no copyright protections for most digital products. Content owners still sold their content electronically, knowing that the risk of piracy was not nearly so crippling as the income they'd lose by staying out of the market. Prior to the DMCA there were already billions of dollars of internet sells being generated, with no little or no protection versus theft. While we often get very riled about warez in this community, it is worth noting that more often than not, a warezer wouldn't have paid for their pirated software anyway. While some feel this is a loss, I figure it's just an expense of doing business. Those who are hones and want it will pay, those who are dishonest will not. Renderosity's strongest defense is our ability to police ourselves, banning and castigating those who steal, regardless of the protections of law. Paul

It's kind of sad to see how closely retail online matches retail offline in problems such as copyright and piracy. ...offline has "knock-offs", copyright and shoplifting. Both venue's are struggling with licensings, patents and general/specific protections. And, you're right, Renderosity has defense's, not the least of which is education and communication :)

Do not forget integrity! To quote John Lennon You may think that Im a dreamer, but Im not the only one. The Majority of Renderosity Members believe in, and have, integrity! If not, how do you explain the galleries overflowing with images? (Images that are not officially copyrighted). I also believe in the motto what comes around goes around. There will always be thieves (Some unknowingly, as with the confusion of who owns what part of a Poser item - Some just blatant rip-off artists). Unfortunately that is just the balance of nature. However, I also believe that if you rip-off something, somewhere down the road (when you least expect it) you too will fall victim to being ripped-off. A little word called Karma comes to mind :]