In the free area of Renderosity is an item that has the following restrictions: "This model and accompanying files must not be used in occult, horror, torture and erotic scenes. I hope to make more ancient props. Enjoy:)" How can someone offer an item for download and then restrict my use of it in my own renders? Just to clarify my position, I am not trying to be disrespectful to the wonderful people out there that are spending their time creating these items for people to use in Poser/Vue/Bryce et al. What I am trying to do is question the validity of trying to put a restriction of usage such as this one. If you create a product and offer it people (whether for sale or for free) to use it in such programs as Poser then really what right do you, as the creator of the item, have to restrict the end user's creative output? I'm not talking about whether we as end users sell the resulting render for profit (as in Commercial use) but use it for non-commercial renders. And this question does not include redistribution of the download item - as this is a copyright issue, and unless specified, is against the law. So guys, what are your thoughts on this issue? Can a restriction such as this be enforceable? It seems highly unlikely to me.

What caught my attention was the terminology used ... in my opinion, it's not specific enough really. The definition of these terms can be quite subjective, in my opinion. By definition, "occult" is something that is hidden from view or secret, or matters involving the supernatural ... this could cover a very broad spectrum, or a very narrow one, depending upon the interpreter. Likewise, these other terms can be construed quite differently by many people. IF the items in free stuff can in fact be restricted by stipulations set forth by the creator, then I'd say they better be a "alot" more specific ... otherwise, I'd say it's up for grabs to use anyway you might see fit. I really don't see how it can be enforced. If someone wants to censor how their free items are used, they may as well not put them out there.

Copyright owners may in fact put restrictions on use of copyrighted material. If you have questions about the scope of the restriction, you should probably ask the copyright owner. It can be enforced through the usual means, such as criminal prosecution or civil lawsuit.

What judge is going to enforce this if I use the item in a render with a faerie in it. Which, by the above definition, would fall under "occult". It would be thrown out of court IMHO.

No torture???? Damn, there goes my Poser-life... But really, this must be the silliest rule ever!

This kind of brings up somthing I have been wanting to ask. I really don't understand why if someone wants to give somthing away for free, why they want to then turn around and say "it's mine, and you can only do what I say with it." I mean if you want to give somthing away for free, then free should be free. If you want to retain all your rights to it, then don't make it free. It seems simple to me. Anyone care to explain?

Awww, sorry to spoil the fun. :-) Actually, the following text is in the Renderosity Terms of Service as "Unacceptable Images". I never really read it myself until tonight: No Rape. No Torture. No Sexual acts. No Physical arousal. No Genital contact with ANY object, other than sitting or clothing. No depictions of young humanoid characters in erotic, seductive, provocative poses or context.

Well I agree with these anyway but that still leaves erotica, horror and occult! ;) So ok - my proposed vampire Vickie chained to the column wearing nothing but nipple clamps and a g-string won't be able to be whipped but still - the rest will past muster :)

To carry the question a bit further, how is the item creator even going to KNOW what you do with it if you don't post your image in public? Suppose you make an image, print it out and hang it on the wall in your bathroom. If the creator of the item in question has no access to your bathroom, how in the world are they ever going to know what sort of image you used it in? I mean really now, let's be honest here. There's really not much that anyone can do about it under those circumstances, now is there. Kate (who thinks the whole idea of "restricting" the sort of image created is silly at the very least)

Seems valid to me. The creator has made something and doesn't want their items used in those ways. I personally have not placed such restrictions on anything, but at the same time, I do understand. Some people have their own moral standards and don't want to contribute to images that don't meet their standards. Sounds like a personal choice for the copyrite owner and also a personal choice for the user.

dont get me wrong here, i think its a silly restriction. pretty much my entire gallery falls under his restricted guidelines. but, being a freestuff contributor, he can pretty much dictate the conditions. noone is forcing you to download the item, whatever it is. someone spent hours, perhaps days or weeks creating the item in question. if they choose to post it with restrictions, however rediculous, it is their right as the creator and generous provider of that product. you dont like it? dont download it. as for items in the marketplace - thats a whole other issue entirely. there was a problem with a specific vendor adding conditions to their licenses AFTER point of sale. rediculous conditions such as requiring the buyer to credit the merchant under every image they post in any gallery, as well as only being allowed to post images under the same name that they purchased the product under. BS like that, wether its hidden in licenses before or after point-of-sale, shouldnt be tolerated. as far as im concerned, when someone buys one of my products, its theirs. they can do whatever they want with it, use it in whatever renders they wish - commercial or non-commercial, or alter it in any way. the only restriction is that it cannot be redistributed in whole or in part, or the material used to create characters/textures to be redistributed or sold. as for my freestuff - if i want to add a condition in the license limiting the use of the product only in renders of the color blue, or with pink polkadots, thats my right as the creator, and it should be respected. cheers, -gabriel

"Copyright owners may in fact put restrictions on use of copyrighted material. If you have questions about the scope of the restriction, you should probably ask the copyright owner. It can be enforced through the usual means, such as criminal prosecution or civil lawsuit." I realize that the above statement is technically correct, but.....practically speaking, who is going to actually SUE a person over the misuse of one of their freestuff items? I mean, suppose I make a freestuff item and it's a ball and I say in my readme that I don't want anybody to use that ball object in a beach scene. And suppose somebody uses that ball object in a beach scene. While I realize that I CAN sue somebody over this...why would I go to all the trouble and expense to do so? For instance, does anybody know of ANYONE who has actually SUED somebody over this kind of thing in recent time? Is there any famous example that we can point to? Has anything ever happened here at Rendersosity? From what I've seen, if anybody outright steals anyone else's work, there's a lot of shouting and name calling, but nothing much ever happens. No major lawsuits. Nothing. I think these kinds of restrictions in readme files are all wishful thinking on the creators' part. It's fantasy. Sometimes I think that people just aren't living in the real world.

Attached Link: US Copyright Laws

The restriction actually has a logical flaw in it that makes it virtually impossible to enforce: Note that it talks about "used in scenes", not about publishing renders publicly. Imagine that I do a render that could be interpreted as "horror". Since I'm not absolutely sure about the creators interpretation of the term "horror", I contact him/her about it, attaching the render. I get a reply saying "Hey, that's horror! You can't use my prop for that!" Just by making the render and sending it to the creator asking for advice, I have breached the restrictions and I can possibly be sued... Restricitng the use of a prop is absolutely pointless. However, if the creator restricted the possibility to use renders of a prop publicly, it's another matter. My personal opinion, however, is that renders of a prop or other item is legally impossible to restrict.

keep debating this folks. all i see here is a bunch of ungrateful people that ive just lost a lot of respect for. this person in question spent time and effort creating this item. he uploaded it for free, sharing it with everyone. now everyone is debating legal loopholes as to how to fuck him. if he doesnt want his product used in erotic or horror renders, as rediculous as it may seem, i think the right thing would be to honor his wishes. noone is forcing you to download this item, he is sharing it with you, and hosting it for you, for free. this is his only condition. how about honoring it, its the least you can do.

"My personal opinion, however, is that renders of a prop or other item is legally impossible to restrict." you have my complete agreement there. however, in my opinion, this is more of a matter of ethics than law.

Blackhearted - check the original damn post before sprouting off! I said: "Just to clarify my position, I am not trying to be disrespectful to the wonderful people out there that are spending their time creating these items for people to use in Poser/Vue/Bryce et al. What I am trying to do is question the validity of trying to put a restriction of usage such as this one." I have no intention of using this item in the type of images that the creator finds to be distasteful. Obviuosly it must be a moral/ethical/religous based decision and I respect that. It was a general question whether people see this type of restriction to be a. valid, b.enforceable or even c. sensible. Very good questions which we all, as users, should ponder when we either download these items or put up items for download. Get off your high horse and check your facts first before you sprout loads of spiteful garbage. I don't need you policing my ethical behaviour - I can do that well enough on my own.

Agreed, Blackhearted. My opinion was from a purely legal perspective. If the free stuff provider has wishes on how a prop should or should not be used, it's more up the the ethics of the artist rather than the law to make sure these wishes are respected.

Blackhearted, when someone puts silly restrictions on an item they are giving away for use, they are trying to violate the end user's rights to freedom of expression, which for the majority of the world is guaranteed by their government. morally, they should not be trying to force people to follow their own beleifs / morals. restricing what you can do in reguards to redistribution, yes that is their right, but anything else is beyond their rights. personally, I don't ever download anything that has a no commercial use restriction, and if there are other stupid restrictions ( such as being discussed here ) I don't waste my time downloading it. thinking I should dig out the "Asshole EULA" that Stormrage put together for a joke one day and start sending it to people that do put stupid restrictions on free stuff.

this is the "Asshole EULA" I was reffering to: Asshole EULA Company or personal name copyright date By using this product you agree to : * You will not redistribute in whole or in part any of the files included within the archive, nor the archive itself. . * You will not offer said archive or files for download on your site unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the creator of this product * You will not offer this archive or files on cd unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the creator of this product. * You will not offer this archive or the files on any peer to peer program that is available now or in the future. You will not use this item in any work that is commercial in nature.(ie you get paid for it) * You will not use this item in any work that is Non commercial in nature * You will not use this item for public display * You will not use any of the items in the archive at all * You will not install any of the files onto any computer less than a 7 ghz Pentium 9 computer * You will not View any image contained in the archive * You will not create any derivative works out of any of the files in the archive * You will not download this archive at all ( by reading this post You have agreed to all of these terms are and bound to follow them ) ~wink~

"I think these kinds of restrictions in readme files are all wishful thinking on the creators' part. It's fantasy. Sometimes I think that people just aren't living in the real world." True. Sad isn't it? What is the arguement about? Someone has created an item and wishes others do not use it in ways he/she wouldn't like. Couldn't everyone just quietly respect that and get on with it? Having been a photographer I can tell you, you wouldn't believe the ways creative copyrighted material can be restricted. Mike

Do I need an egyptian column that the usage is restricted on? Yup! I'll keep it in the same folder as my chocolate fireguard and the wheels for my cow. Can't help noticing that there's not even a thumbnail with the item in question. No info whatsoever on the user's homepage. And no gallery of his/her/its own. Why does the word 'Troll' spring to mind?

Attached Link: Free stuff with unrestricted use.

Just to clear things up: 1) Making a render that features someone's mesh does not infringe the copyright of the maker of the mesh. Redistributing the mesh does. 2) Placing a restriction as to what sort of picture a prop can be used in has no legal force whatsoever. 3) If you flout the restriction, the mesh maker has no comeback against you at all, BUT he/she will be majorly pissed off and probably stop contributing to free stuff in future. Your call.

The more you are given, the more ungrateful and demanding you become. Copyright law is clear. The creator has certain rights in the work they have created from the moment of creation. When you refuse to honor the right of any artist to restrict how their work is used, and mock them for their temerity, you demean all of us. You weren't like this 2 years ago. Carolly

Carolly, so if you downloaded a free item then found it could only be used in commercial, sexually explicit bdsm images and you would have to pay the creator 80% of the commision you would think that was well within their rights? to tell you that you have to make pornographic images with it and pay them? scuse my french but BULLSHIT!!! you the artist own the render copyright, no matter if you made every prop used or not. you are the only one that can decide how an item is going to be used in YOUR copyrighted image. not anyone else. or you are giving others the copyright on your images, because THEY DICTATED to you what you were making. this is not about respecting copyright, it is about respecting, or not, wishes in use that have nothing to do with copyright.

Phantast, that is a pretty good summary of the whole issue. Carolly, you are right in one thing: copyright is copyright. Having issues with how a certain prop is used in a render, however, is a restriction of artistic creativity and expression. Don't confuse these two things.

Geez, this one guy/gal sure has gotten some issues going with his restriction on his freestuff item. It does seem silly, but that's a personal opinion, not the law. Kelderek is right, copyright is copyright, and whether you use it within the requested restrictions is a matter of choice depending on if you want to respect the creator's wishes. If you aren't sure about the terms in the restrictions, write him/her and ask ... if you don't think it's a big deal, then don't. Pretty simple.

Attached Link: http://www.shininghalf.com/desprit/rants.html

Ah, the "Path of What I Was Going to Do Anyway" argument.

My stance generally is at the above link. I wasn't intentionally singling out Mehndi; her stance just happened to be delivered right to my e-mailbox.

As for where copyright law says these restrictions are allowed, IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer), I think that'd be section 106. "the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:" ... "(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and"
A model is most like a graphic or a sculpture, I'm assuming. So, if you're going to put up your image using Bubba Bo Bob's free possum, and Bubba says you can use it in any image except ones that include the color purple, guess what? You can make as many purple possums as you want, but you can't post any of them. Why? Bubba authorized use(display) of his possum in any picture EXCEPT ones that include purple. Nowhere does it say that if one display is allowed, they all must be, and nowhere does it say the pattern of authorization has to make sense.

you the artist own the render copyright, no matter if you made every prop used or not. you are the only one that can decide how an item is going to be used in YOUR copyrighted image. not anyone else.

Why is it this argument is always used? Why does the end artist get the right to decide how SA'S copyrighted work is used, but the prop creator does NOT? Explain that to me. I've yet to see it make sense.

And, as for the enforcement question, here's a real example. My animal-related freebies have the stipulation that they not be used to promote or glorify animal cruelty. What would I do if I found an image using them that did? I would contact the artist and ask them to take it down. If they didn't, I'd see about getting an injunction to make them do so. I probably wouldn't sue; lawsuits take time and money. In the meantime, those downloads will be pulled down until the matter is settled to my satisfaction, and if it isn't, then they don't go back up.

FS, cause if the artist didn't have the vision / creative urge to create the image they have in their mind, that image wouldn't exist. that is why it is the end user of the prop that has the copyright on the render. not the modeller that made one prop of 40 in it.

Sorry, FyreSpiryt, but that just doesn't make sense. You can't compare a 3D model with a "literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works" etc in this way. The render of a 3D model becomes a work of it's own once it's rendered. The image does not contain the 3D model, it's just a rendered representation of it. Therefore, the above law doesn't apply. If you take a literary or musical piece, however, it's something else. You can't reprint a literary piece or perform a musical piece in a manner that the copyright holder specifically prohibits. Or if you display a sculpture in a museum the artist dislikes. But the render of a 3D model have nothing to do with the copyright of the model itself.

actually, here if someone was to use one of your models in a render you don't want them used in, the SPCA would have them in jail for promoting the cruelty to animals. ( which includes beastiality ) a restriction to stop images that violate laws in most places isn't much of a restriction. ~g~ since making such an image could get the artist in prison for a few years. one person locally was actually sentenced to six months in prison, no parole for leaving his dog in his car on a summer day. he left it for 10 minutes and when he showed up at his car he had large bottle of water for the dog on him. still got charged and convicted. ( the windows were closed )

Give me a break Carolly: "The more you are given, the more ungrateful and demanding you become." This is not about being ungrateful! Read the damn post. I agree - copyright is copyright but this isn't even about copyright. It's about a restriction written saying don't use item a in any images that contain x,y,z. If a creator doesn't like x,y,z then fine - I respect that. BUT - HOW MANY OTHERS DON'T. So if you're going to create something an object that is freely available then you better be prepared that someone is not going to follow your requests. And unless you're as big as Microsoft then be prepared there's nothing much you can do about it. "...mock them for their temerity" - show me where I did this. I have, have always have and will ways have the utmost respect for the creators of these items - I just don't want anyone dictating to me what sort of imagery I can create. BTW by flagging this issue I was opening the floor up to discussion by members of this site in how they feel about this issue. So please stop coming off all high and mighty and dissing the rest of us that don't agree with your view point. FyreSpiryt - I agree with Jaqui - the final copyright does reside with the artist that creates the render. It is their vision that did so. What items they used to help them create that vision belongs to those original creators but they have no input into how they're used. Pretty much the same as it is in photography.

I wish I lived where you did. On a regular basis I run into stories of kittens being barbequed (Liberty, MO, this year), cats being tortued, dogs being shot. It varies so widely from place to place, and there aren't federal laws. It's local or state. And FAR too many judges ignore the very clearly demonstrated link towards cruelty to animals and later cruelty to humans (toddlers are often the next step) and just give the perpetrator a slap on the wrist. Why is respect for the original creator's wishes so hard? There are a dozen copies of almost every object out there. If you don't like the restriction on one, just use another. If the one you have is unique, ask. I don't understand why we keep going through this over and over again. If you don't like the conditions, don't use it. Does it really matter if it's legal or not to be a jerk; it's still being a jerk. And on that note that's gonna get me flamed like there's no tomorrow, I'm going to work. Ba-bye.

I don't download copyright restricted stuff. I appreciate the person who takes the time and effort to give this stuff to us, and I admire them for being nice enough to share. I respect them enough to NOT use what the have provided to us. I would rather take the time to model or create a texture than take the time to try to figure out how to screw with someone's RIGHT to dictate how they would like to see their FREE gift used. It doesn't matter how many people on the net might use the item for whatever, I will not violate that person't RIGHT to state how they want it used. michal atlas you are WAY out of line by putting that image up. All it says to me is that you care nothing for other people's feelings or the right to restrict their items. You are nothing short of rude. If you don't like the restrictions, don't download the item. Why waste space debating why or why not or how someone can use it. Some people have thought me rude because no matter how nice something is I won't download it if I can't use it commercially. Not rude, just frustrated because I would love to have it. Marque Marque

And that's from both of us...lol Marque

One more quick note to those of you who think this person is out of line, how many times have I seen people get crazy here because someone is using their renders on a site without permission? Marque

I know that sometimes people put restrictions such as these not so much because they're trying to control the way you use it, but to avoid being associated with work that they find offensive. I have seen my fighting poses used in rather disturbing fetish renders, but I am not credited as the creator of the poses (which is fine with me). If they did list me in the credits, I would politely ask them to remove my name, which I'm sure they would do. Free stuff providers may not have the power to dictate how you use their creations, but the users could at least TRY and respect their wishes. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. SnowS Hoping his pictures are worth 1001 words. 1001 Words

Here, I'll give you a knife ...
... just don't stick it in anyone.

Here, I'll give you a gun ...
... just don't shoot anyone.

Here, I'll give you a piece of paper ...
... just don't write any "dirty" words on it.

Oh, and did you want fries with that?

LMAO @ geep, well said. If man/woman could actually control the freedom of another person's power to express themselves we would all be robots. Not even the law can control one desire to express themselves no matter how well it is written. Even in copyright law, that is why we have lawyers out the ass!

A "stop sign" ...

CAN NOT prevent ...

a vehicle ...

from going through an intersection,

can it?

;=]

But respect for the law will induce the driver to stop the car geep. Marque

No "occult" imagery, please. That means aboslutely no representation of Egyptian religion, mysteries, gods/goddesses, etc. You must not illustrate bible stories from the book of Exodus. Lots of horror, occult, and torture there. With all due respect to copyright laws and Blackhearted's clear thinking, these "restrictions" are absurd in context. Totally. I mean, define "eros" or "occult" to everyone's satisfaction. You can't. I think we all have common ideas about what "torture" means, but even that term can be subjective. One is inclined to laugh out loud and buy the superior CastleDev Egyptian columns instead. Fascinating issue, though...

reads... shakes head... walks away. Some people just aren't worth the effort, and I don't mean the guy who made the column.

Totally agree. ;=]

I don't see anything about the freestuff contributor denying the rights of others to produce whatever kind of images they want; but has merely expressed that he/she does not want to contribute to some of it. Their free contribution, their right to ask to be respected. I don't see how this is too much to ask. Obviously free for some is not good enough.

This person made the column, has the copyright to it, can tell us anything he wants as far as usage...and by law, we must honor that request. Cut and dried, doesn't take a genius to figure it out. This discussion actually shouldn't even exist because it is a moot point. Anyone that has created something and been nice enough to GIVE IT A WAY PEOPLE! GIVE IT AWAY! should have their wishes respected. Anything less is ungrateful, rude and below contempt. Marque, I totally agree with your points, Questor you also, but I just had to say something, I'm so sick of this crap around here. Pendarian

You know what I am really tired of hearing in this thread as I read it.. Is that anyone who complains about freestuff items are ungreatfull. It does not matter if it is free or not. The item is a simple colum and would appear in many scenese. The issue is CAN THE ARTIST FORBID YOU FROM USING IT IN CERTAIN SCENES. No. Simple as that. Those of you calling everyone else ungreatful are wrong, and missing that single point to this thread. Maybe if you actually listened to the concerns instead of hearing how "ungreatful" everyone is.. You'd see that. You cannot prevent people using anything in anyway shape or form. Yes you can try. But you cannot do it.

and since i just woke up do not mind my spelling mistakes ;P