Cyberstretch, in addition to statutory law on copyrights, there is also common law and case law. I recommend that you consult a treatise on copyright law. I don't care enough about "winning" a debate that I'm going to do free legal research on the issue. If anyone would like to hire me to write a legal memorandum on the issue, however, drop me a line. I do find two things troubling. One thing is that there seems to be a low level of respect for property rights in works of art within this artists' community. The second is the level to which copyright concerns are ignored based on the fact that it is often more costly than it's worth for copyright-holders, such as those who contribute here, to pursue violations. Legal issues aside, I hope that lack of respect for contributors doesn't discourage future contribution.

Hey Questor, what's to be gained from a comment like that? Was your comment "worth the effort?" If so, perhaps you could elaborate instead of slagging off. Why is this issue making so many people feel superior to others? This community can and frequently does come to respectful disagreements. Having said so, I for one will respect the model maker's request. I probably won't download it at all, but that's only becuase I already have Egyptian columns which I don't use much, not due to the requested restrictions. I can't apologize for my initial reaction, there was nothing inappropriate or disrespectful about it. I see some conflicting claims regarding copyright, but no actual references to law or clauses. To say that someone might be "beneath contempt" for using the model in a manner that might conflict with the ill-defined restrictions is too much. If they're doing it soley to 'get back' at the model provider, yes, that's immature. IMO the image of that nature in this thread was not helpful to the debate. But if, say, I choose to use the column in a scene which illustrates Egyptian cosmology, which could very easily include "occult" or "erotic" iconography, I would have absolutely no guilt whatsoever, nor would I take criticism of my choice seriously, nor would any legitimate court of law support the model maker's complaint, should there be one. (OK, so I just made a legal claim without providing my own citations, but I am quite confident on this.) I agree that ultimately, this is much more about ethics than law. While I found the requested restrictions to be absurd and vague, I do think it's important to respect the spirit of them according to one's understanding and conscience. Hopefully this is slightly more articulate than my prior comments. "This discussion shouldn't even exist." Censorial and wrong. It's a very healthy discussion. The thread wouldn't have endured to this length if people didn't care about the issue, regardless of their specific conviction. These issues are relevant to CG in general, as well as FreeStuff and the Marketplace. I haven't seen them addressed this directly before.

The point of the thread was if the restriction was valid or not...and it is. Whether or not you can enforce it is a moot point, because as the copyright holder you can. Whether or not people choose to honor your request is up to the person using it and boils down to being grateful that they received something for free in the first place and the respect to the copyright holder's wishes. Legally, yes you can do it. Practical? Not really...that is where respect and being grateful for it comes into play. That is what the thread is about. And I'm sorry, but if I've been given a present, like it or not, strings attached or not, I'm grateful for the actual present in the first place. A gift is not a gift if it's questioned. (oh this is great and nice but....) If I don't like the restrictions, I simply pass it by...there are already a plethora of columns. So yes, they can forbid you and enforce it if they choose to do so. It's called owning what you have created. Simple as that. And I'm not calling "everyone" ungrateful..but there are a few, you know it, I know it, everyone does..and they spoil it for the rest of us. Pendarian

One important point to those who support people that restrict use of free stuuf, that was not mentioned here: Putting legal thoughts on that matter aside for the moment, the arguments you used to support thier restrictions can easly be taken to justify another step further: Not just HOW the item is used, but also by WHOM they may be used or not used. So with your arguments, it might be okay for some prop maker to state that his or her item may not be used by white,black or green skinned users, not by male or female, right or left handed users, or whatever you wish to include to this list. And I strongly think no one here want's such sort of crap going on! I think it would be best, if a general kind of "EULA" would be made here, and by uploding links to your freestuff here, you would put them under this agreement (maybe with the exeption of making it completly free of any kind of restriction by the maker), so debates like this don't have to be made. Think about it.

(... to which, some would answer .............. YES, definately!)(

"copyright"

with ...

"useright" ......... (or wrong?)

When someone says, "A penny for your thoughts.", and the other person puts their 2 cents in ...

What happens to the other penny?

Dr Geep wants to know.

;=]

Dunno where that other penny goes, but if you find them, you'll probably be a multi-billionaire.

How is this restriction limiting anyone's freedom of expression? You can still make every image you could before downloading it, plus at least a few (clothed Mike in an antique shop, say) that you couldn't before.

"This discussion shouldn't even exist" xoconostle if you are referring to my quote I actually said: "This discussion actually shouldn't even exist because it is a moot point" And it is. And we have been down this road a lot...and often. And some people still don't understand or get it. Some feel that they are "owed" freestuff and can use it for whatever they want despite restrictions put on them by copyright holders. Just respect the restrictions or pass the product by, it's that simple. Oh and please, if you are going to quote me, please do not take me out of context. We as artists, hobbyists whatever, should all be very careful when it comes to copyright. And that is what should rule the discussion, not what we "want" but what it "is". We should respect the artist's wishes, whether we agree, whether we think it's ludicrous, stupid, restrictive or not...we must respect them, or run the risk of not having our wishes respected when the time comes. I was not in any way shape or form trying to be censorial, that is almost funny actually given my stance on censorship as an artist. Pendarian

This issue falls under fair use laws. You cannot restrict how someone uses a freestuff/sale item you can only restrict redistribution of said item.

You know that these kind of comments are what chase freestuff providers away? If someone does you a favor do you have the right to slap them in the face for doing so? Keep flaming the creators of these models and soon freestuff will be emptystuff and you will be staring at a blank poser screen with no models to render with! Ron Cartier

I did not intend to take your comment out of context, pendarian. The point is not moo, it is debatable. "Moot" is strictly your opinion. Ask a lawyer. :-) My use of "censorial" had nothing to do with artistic freedom, which I thought was obvious. Clearly, this discussion needs to exist. That's what I meant. Have a wonderful weekend, all! Render freely! ;-)

The people who think that debating this issue is an indication of being "ungrateful" are missing the point. If anything, this debate will inform potential freestuff contributors that it's essentially MEANINGLESS to put restrictions of use (regarding renders) in read-me files. And this might help them decide whether or not to post their items for free. And, it definitely IS meaningless, for all practical purposes. Pointing this out does not automatically make me "ungrateful" for the people who contribute free items. Nor does it mean that I'm going to go against their wishes. But they ought not to delude themselves into thinking that they have any real power over how anybody is going to use their object in a render. As I said before, sometimes I think that some people just aren't living in the REAL world.

I propose there be TWO 'freestuff' areas. One for non-restricted use in images, and the other not. Period. This labeling on the freestuff now isn't working out I don't think because several I've run across are mislabled. You have to download to figure it out. Telling people 'well, just don't download' is no solution when you don't know for sure beforehand what restrictions there are. If someone uploads to the wrong area, let the email fly and people will learn soon enough.

Back again! :-) I'd also like to indicate that criticism of the model provider's "must not" clause is in no way a personal attack, nor is it indicative of a lack of appreciation. I'm very appreciative, very, of freestuff providers. There ahve been several times that I've IM'd providers with thanks. If the provider of the column finds this thread, they probably won't like much of what they read, but perhaps they can think about less provocative or more specific ways of requesting that items not be used in certain ways. Ultimately, what Stormrage said so succinctly is correct. Some of the "amateur lawyers" need to realize that they're expressing their opinions as if they're law. Big difference.

First of all, let me say this: I think the freestuff makers are the very life's blood of this community, and someone who is "ungrateful" would not be likely to say that. Secondly, I wouldn't download an item with restrictions, and if I did download one, I would delete it without even installing it. I have no use for restricted items. There are too many more out there for me to use that don't have restrictions. That being said, here are my thoughts on the issue. Yes, the creator has the right to impose usage restrictions on their items and expect them to be adhered to in and ideal world. However, we do not live in an ideal world, and enforcing those restrictions is near to impossible simply because not all images are posted online. And not all images are posted for public display. In fact, I'm quite sure that there are tons of images out there that are only ever seen by their creators. I know my files are filled with images that nobody will EVER see, as they were created simply for my own personal pleasure and viewing. This being the case, how on this green earth is someone supposed to know what is in those images that nobody but the artist who made them ever sees? And if those images violate the usage restrictions, how is anyone, anywhere, ever going to know (other than the artist, that is)? You cannot prosecute violations if you don't KNOW there IS a violation. It's that simple. Which is why, I, personally, think it's pretty much a waste of time to say "you MUST NOT" or "you CANNOT" do something. It would be better, and much more realistic and practical to say "I wish you wouldn't" instead. PLUS it would have the added advantage of cutting down on discussions of this particular issue. :D Kate (who has lots and lots of stuff that none of y'all will EVER get to look at... hehe)

second try at posting this. This thread is the biggest piece of blantent bull shit I've ever seen. It really piss's me off. I AM AN AMERICAN I will NEVER ever be told or restricted in what kind of religious picture I'm allowed to create. Period. Has anyone ever heard of the US Constitution. Right here on Renderosity one of my dearest friend is a wiccan, another is native american. Hell- renderosity itself is base's in Utah- the center of Mormonism. I am Baptist. Freedom is not just words on a peice of paper but a way of life. That modeler deserves NO respect what-so-ever for that kind of EULA, and no court would ever uphold it. I'm going to make a picture with it just for spite- he (the creator) may be atheist or muslem- I don't know or care. He was just plain WRONG (yes Virgina, there is right and wrong). Rant over- let the flaming begin- doesn't matter, I live in the land of the free and the home of the brave- so if you don't like my opinion- bite me!

As Kate said, they do have the right to restrict, whether or not people follow it is up to each individual..but they do have that right. That is what I'm saying. Fair use laws? Stormrage, I'm not sure if you are correct or not, here is what I know about "Fair use Laws" "The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author" It really has little use pertaining to this instance that I can see. Even the DMCA right now is still struggling with that one. If there is an instance that applies to freestuff/sale situations of software (because that is really what this is) please post it so we can learn more about it :) I for one would definately appreciate it.(no I'm not being a smarta** I really want to know) xoconostle: "Some of the "amateur lawyers" need to realize that they're expressing their opinions as if they're law. Big difference." Was that supposed to try and negate any of our opinions here on the thread? I find that a very dismissive attitude because it does not agree with yours. Can't we have a good debate without name calling, even if it is obscured to prevent being accused of personal attacks? And do we know for sure that those that are quoting law, are "amateur lawyers"? Do we really know each other that well? In any case, this is a discussion we all have had for a long time, and ultimately, it really doesn't matter what the readme says, because each of us is either going to respect or not respect the wishes, no matter how ludicrous we think it is or not. This is true with freestuff or for sale stuff. I mean look at the warez boards people. Readme's sure aren't stopping them are they? The law isn't either. Pendarian (Who also has lots of stuff no one else can see because of restrictions on what was used.)

pendarian Actually That is what I was told by a lawyer I myself paid for his time and research (which wasn't cheap) when Thunderstorm Creations first formed. I may have it wrong being under Fair use laws but the law does state (somewhere in all the rigamarole) that you cannot tell people how to use your things.. only tell them they can't redistribute it. This was a good lawyer. He cost me enough and he knew his stuff.. (Copyright infringement lawyer.) So I tend to trust him ;)

I just bought this great shirt at Nordstrom's, but on the lable there's a EULA! It says I can't wear it to go to wild parties or while smoking or drinking alcohol or trying to pick up loose women. And those are my favorite things to do in shirts! DAMN!

Pendarian said, "This discussion actually shouldn't even exist because it is a moot point" I have to disagree completely with that statement, simply because I believe that ANY discussion that makes people THINK about the free stuff they download is worth having. There are always plenty new members arriving here who are unaware of past discussions on this (and plenty other) subjects. Not only that, people can change their opinions by reading intelligent arguments on both sides of any question. Or are we all so fixed in our ideas that nothing will ever change our minds? Apart from that, as a Freestuff creator AND user, I personally feel that the creator of this item made a big mistake in imposing restricrtions on the use of it. If he/she had said something like "I would prefer that it NOT be used for erotica, torture scenes, etc, and if you downloaded this, please try to respect my wishes", it might have had a more positive effect. As it is, he/she has created a situation that is actually inciting some (IMO irresponsible) people to go AGAINST the restrictions. Whether this is enforcable or not seems to me to be beside the point. I won't even say it's a stupid restriction, because if someone puts it in their readme, then I must respect the fact that they obviously feel very strongly about not being associated with that type of image. The point is, would this person ever TRY to enforce it? Probably not, I reckon. And nothing I've seen in the semi-legal opinions above has convinced me that it would stand up in a court. As someone asked above, "Has ANYONE ever been sued over this kind of thing?" Anyway, all that is beside the point too. The question is this. Would you, knowing that it can't be enforced, deliberately use the item for an image you know the creator would hate, after he/she went to the trouble of making it and giving it to you for nothing? Or would you go look for an alternative, or make your own? I would like to think that the majority of people in this community would say 'No' to the first question and 'Yes' to the second. In other words, it's a simple matter of respect for people's generosity and their wishes. It just might have sounded less intrusive if it WAS a wish and not a restriction. I mean, if you bought a Donny Osmond album (LOL - I hope you never did!) and it required you to attend a Mormon service every time you listened to it, you might think twice before you went to an Osmonds concert! mac

Good morning people - I have just caught up on all of these entries and boy there was a lot. To those that say why are we even discussig this - obviously by the number of entries it means a great deal to alot of us that these type of restrictions do occur and what (if any) their validity is. Burying your head in the sand about issues won't make them go away. To those that say we're being ungrateful - this was never, never about that! Get off your high horses and read the posts properly. I have the utmost respect to the creators of the items in the Free area and the Marketplace. I just don't like being dictated to in what I create from my imagination. FYI - I have personally emailed this guy and explained my stance about this issue, thanking him for his time and explaining that I won't be using his item simply because I wouldn't want to create anything that might inadvertantly create him any distress. To those still trying to justify their positions by screaming 'copyright' - grow up. You're not lawyers and sprouting quotes out of context doesn't justify your positions. Read Stormrages entries (#62 & #73) and it will explain what a real lawyer has said. And anyway - restrictions of usage has nothing to do with copyright! geoegress - now, now - behave! Don't lower yourself to the level we've been accused of by creating this image. You just feed the fire. I agree about freedom of speech (though I'm not an American) but doing something to spite somebody doesn't help. So back on with the real question behind this thread - are these types of restrictions valid? Try and give your thoughts without flying off the handle and insulting everyone. Name calling doesn't help anyone.

Thanks Mac! Oh and hey! I liked Donny Osmond! :)

again, if you dont like the conditions that a contributor attaches to his shared free item, then dont download it and move on. comments like this really infuriate freestuff providers: "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. " dont waste your time downloading it? that whole two seconds? how about the hours of time and effort the provider spent creating that item? hosting it? sharing it with everyone with the simple condition that it not be used in renders that they find offensive and dont want to be associated with? this is not a legal issue, this is an ethical one. and honestly, i doubt this thread is going to encourage anyone to provide more freestuff. these same threads come up every now and then, and the last one only served to infuriate and deter some well-known freestuff providers. its certainly made me and rio reconsider the free projects i was working on until last night. as for marketplace products - my stance is the complete opposite. i refuse to purchase any product that has a modified license, or conditions in addition to those set out by the standard renderosity license. but freestuff is something entirely different - it reflects the selfless contribution of time and effort by a person to the community, and im quite sickened by some of the responses in this thread, namely the ones that contain such insults as 'wasting my time downloading' and 'stupid conditions'.

The reason I said it was a moot point is that there will never be a meeting of the minds on this...been there, done that, got the T-shirt..anyway you want to put it. This is not the first time something like this has come up. In answer to your question, yes it is valid. He owns the copyright and he can put restrictions in his license on how to use it. Same as Daz, CL et al. Now whether or not we honor it is a completely different thread. Pendarian

Thanks for your insites Pendarian. This was the type of input that the original post was intended to create. I agree with your first point - there won't ever be a meeting of the minds on this but I still don't think we should ever just bury our heads in the sand and hope the issue goes away (clarification - not insinuating that you're doing this). Healthy discussion is good and should open up the lines of communication between those of us who are the end users and those that are the creators. I still don't think it's valid - IMO - but I will respect it and not download it incase I cause the original creator any distress.

**Enters the room and looks around at the carnage and body parts strewn around. "Must've been a hum-dinger of a party. Sorry I missed it. I'll try to catch the next one." **walk around helping everyone to their feet. Thanks everyone for their passionate committment to R'osity.

To those of you who respect the wishes of creators, whether you agree with them or not, thank you. You will never know how much I appreciate your maturity. Good karma is yours, and may blessings come your way. To those of you who think that anyone stupid enough to allow something to be used free of charge thereby loses a large number of their rights to it, I can only quote the great Gypsy. "Aw, to hell with every last one of ya." I'm outta this round.

Pendarian, I just sent you an apology as an IM prior to seeing your response, here. In fact, we agree quite a bit. I don't want to seem dismissive of the opinions of others even if I disagree. In fact, that sort of thing is what I meant to object to. Let's please not be Rosity enemies. I frankly would prefer not to have any, I just state opinions a bit too strongly sometimes. One last word on the topic: I think that the requested restriction violates the spirit of free expression which creative people tend to cherish, and must defend, especially in these days of encroaching fundamentalism. Again, I feel strongly that in the context of historical Egypt, the restriction is absurd and indefensible.

As for the fundie that posted the free (sort of0 egyptian pillar, now the poor sucker has to spend all his time combing thru all the Poser galleries making sure nobody violates his restrictions. plus, he has to get subscriptions to all the occult magazines and hit all the occult and BDSM websites and porn sites to make sure nobody there is using any of his stuff....:P

Hmm, this column really seems to be distressing a lot of people.... maybe I should make a column that has the "can only be used in occult, horror, torture and erotic scenes" to balance it all out, then everyone can have a column and use it. :)

xoconostle, I got it and thank you. I prefer not to have enemies myself, and yes I also tend to state things more passionately then I should at times. My last word on the subject LOL!! As owner of the copyright, he can restrict the usage as with any EULA. The only way to get around it is not download it. What concerns me as an artist and a freestuff artist is this, restrictions are restrictions...whether it be no commercial use or anything more restrictive. We agree to it when we install the product. Whether we pay for something or not, copyright law does not make that distinction, it is still copyrighted and by that very thing, we have borrowed it, but we don't own it. We cannot pick and choose which restrictions we comply to...we must respect them all. If we pick and choose, then what is next? Our artwork on someone else's site, even though we have said under our images that they couldn't? Yes, I know it already happens and we scream to high heaven when it does. Why is respecting and honoring this copyright any different? I do not have to agree with it, but I do as an artist and a person have to comply with it, because I gave my word when I installed it that I would do so. If we can't live with what is requested, just don't download it or buy it. It is a valid request...we just don't happen to like it. And as guarie says, he won't download it so he will not cause the creator any distress...bravo for him/her...for thinking about the person behind the creation :) guarie, if you were here I would hug you just for that simple statement. "There is no honor among thieves" as the old saying goes...but I would like to think there is among artists and the artistic community. Okay, I'll go shut up now and sit in my corner :) Pendarian

Damn, should have waded through 88 posts of this thread first... I see Ratteler has already gone down that path to satiate the masses.

LOL! Pendarian: "guarie, if you were here I would hug you just for that simple statement." And maybe you wouldn't! I'm a male! As for your other quote: "but I would like to think there is among artists and the artistic community." Well said - so would I. Guarie

"dont waste your time downloading it? that whole two seconds? how about the hours of time and effort the provider spent creating that item? hosting it?" My question is.. Why make something to share if you don't want to see it used? Honestly. i make sure everything of mine is restriction free except for redistribution because I want to see it used. I Do work for clients.. You can damned well bet I don't waste time downloading something I can't use. I sell my work. I don't want to wade through hundreds of things just to be fair to those who restrict my work and my ability to make money. You made it.. fine..I like it but no I won't waste my time to download something I can't use. It may be the best diamond studded earing I have seen in along time.. but if you have restricted it it's something I cannot use.

I'm really blown away by this. I've only been hanging around the Poser community a very short time and really had the impression that, for the most part, all of the members here were supportive and respectful of one another. While I'm sure that in most instances this really is true, I can't get over the fact that although I'm sure that the unenforcable eula is often violated, this freestuff contributor gets slammed for it. Especially post 37. At least have the courtesy to not throw it in his face. If you're gonna abuse something someone has freely contributed, then at least do it quietly. You should be listening to people like Blackhearted... having second thoughts about providing stuff simply for the fun of providing it. Many have in essence said "I'll take whatever you're offering and if you don't like what I do with it, tough s**t." What the hell is that? To those who say they will pass something by because they don't wish to conform to the provider's requests, I can respect that. To those who avail themselves of the opportunity to d/l something and disregard the creator's request, well, really nothing can be done about it, it probably happens all the time and that doesn't make it right. But to those who feel that it becomes their own property and proudly proclaim they have the right to use it as they wish remember the other side of the coin: contributors have the right to stop contributing. I'm sure the pillar guy will. And that's sad.

Get a grip krimpr - no one has 'slammed' the guy who created the column. What most of us have been doing is questioning the validity of the restrictions he has tried to place on the use of his free item. Nothing more. Please get the facts right before wading in. And please - don't try and tell us who to listen to and who not to listen to. Blackhearted has one view, which I can respect even though he has trouble respecting those that are different to his, but there are others - that's what makes us a diverse community.

contributors have the right to stop contributing. I'm sure the pillar guy will. And that's sad.<< What's so sad about it? If he stops contributing, so what??? With draconian restrictions like his, who needs it? I have 3 perfectly good Egyptian columns that I paid daz $1.99 for. This is precisely the reason i boycott free stuff. I can proudly say that everything in my runtime folder is paid-for stuff. The pillar guy sounds like just another Fundie trying to push his Fundie agenda... Can anyone tell that I have an axe to grind with fundies?

Guarie: Sure, I'd hug you, I'm female :) And yes, I tend to look upon artists as a more honorable and noble bunch, old fashioned and rosey glasses, perhaps...but, it's how I feel and for the most part the artists I have met, it's how they act. Storm, I know what you mean..if it has restrictions that we can't live with commercially, then why take the time and waste the harddrive space? I agree on that one. I have a whole bunch of stuff I need to clean out because of that very reason. I don't have time when I'm doing a commission or getting ready for a convention to figure out if what I have installed is okay for commercial use, so I have just stopped downloading anything that says no commercial usage. I don't want the hassle and I don't want to step on the creator's toes. I think that's fair enough. Martin, I'm happy for you that you can afford to pay for everything that you use. That's a good thing, but there are those that can't and that is really what freestuff is all about. I know when I first started if freestuff hadn't been around, I would have been lost. Pendarian

oops, guess that wasn't my last word on it afterall was it? Sorry guys and gals :) LOL!!! Oh Storm, thanks for the info about the fair usage act.:) I am going to continue to research all of that a bit more, especially since there seems to have been some changes with the digital laws that they are passing and fighting about. Pendarian

Actually, I agree with Martian Manhunter. I'd rather pay for something rather than get it free but with oddball restrictions attached. As for showing "gratitude" toward freestuff contributors, I always thought the ONLY way to do that was to USE their stuff in renders and credit them, thus giving them exposure. I can't think of any other way to show "gratitude" to a freestuff object creator. The real thrill for a freestuff contributor is to see how many ways their creations can be used in renders. That's why they do it. All this stuff about how they're "going to go away if we're not nice to them" is silly. We don't have to invite them over for dinner. We don't have to honor their memory by giving them their own national holiday. We just have to use their stuff. That's the whole idea. Right? jjsemp

I read the posts quarie, English isn't a second language for me. And yes the pillar guy has been slammed for requesting that his the stuff he provides isn't used in a way he finds offensive. Too much to ask? No big deal. Download something else. No one is trying to take the pork chop off of your plate. You're right, I have no right to tell anyone who to listen or not listen to. What I should have said is that I completely agree with him, so that is what I am saying now. And martian hunter what's sad is that a contributor that is probably well intentioned thought he was offering something that may be useful to someone, if not you in particular. If two bucks allows you to aquire a restriction free pillar collection then great. You've done the right thing. I don't think that is the point. You can buy pretty much anything. Being grateful for being given somthing for nothing is something altogether different.

Marti(a)n, I'm happy for you that you can afford to pay for everything that you use. That's a good thing, but there are those that can't<< Actually I don't have much of money (i'm a struggling college freshman), but about once (or twice if I'm lucky) a year i get a bit of cash and can afford a small spending spree (a couple hundred bux or so)and i spend the rest of the year deciding what i will get next time I get money... It's just that i like the pay-for stuff better because i don't have to jump thru anyone's hoops to use it...

For heaven's sake, WHAT IS SO HARD about noticing the restriction, saying to YOURSELF "Bah, forget that", and deleting it? Why do so many have to mouth off and say the kinds of things like Martian Manhunter said above? This thread has simply turned into a sickening display of the attitudes some members here have. Storm, I'm glad you are able to do commissioned work and I'm sure you do an excellent job. However, as much as we might all like to pretend that we're professional artists here, only a handful of us actually get paid to create art. I've said before that Free Stuff is the life blood of the casual Poser user, and to many of us, commercial restrictions mean nothing. "All this stuff about how they're "going to go away if we're not nice to them" is silly." I wish that were true, but I can think of quite a few Free Stuff providers offhand who did just that, wusuma being one of the more frustrating examples of how a few people spoil it for everyone. Perhaps when we're all rolling in dough like Mars-boy up there though, we won't need Free Stuff providers any more. ;P SnowS

I just get that way when people try tio control what i do and then whine about ingratitude. I don't need anyone's charity. My dad once told me that as long as he was supporting me i had to jump thru his hoops, so i told him where he could stick his money and left. that was 19 years ago and i haven't been back since. During a brief flirtation with Christianity, they kept trying to control me so i told them where to stick their church, their ancient book, and their dead saviour and haven't been inside a church since 1988. I never take free handouts because there's always hidden catches. If you get something free then you're expected to be grateful (which means you owe them something). I don't have much, but what little I have is mine and i don't have to kiss anyone's @$$ so even though it means doing without at least i can be proud of the little that i have.

SnowSultan.. actually I have been lucky. A few clients who I have picked up doing erotic work have stayed and continue to contract art though I no longer create erotic art. Freestuff may be part of the lifeblood of the casual poser user, so these restrictions shouldn't matter.. However for those of us who do either plan on selling our art or already do sell our art are just trying to point out how rediculous some of these restrictions can be and let you know they can't be enforced. I always try to abide by people's restrictions.. (just don't download the items solves that) But people also need to know that if someone does use their restricted item they really can't enforce the restriction. It's just not possible.. either monetarily or legally. Most freestuff providers need to sit down and really know what's entailed in giving away items for free.

Thanks for explaining Martian, now I can see where you're coming from. I just might suggest that you not be too hard on people who are trying to give things away for free, or more than one person might tell you where you can stick it too. ;) I also understand what you mean Storm, and if you're creating commercial art, you really cannot use items that have such restrictions. I just believe that if you're going to be paid for your work, you shouldn't complain if you can't use a free item to help create it (not you personally, I mean in general). Heh, and I think more people who complain about freestuff need to sit down and find out what's entailed in the creation, hosting, and headaches of the flames and idiotic questions that Free Stuff providers face. :) Thanks for your time, take care. SnowS

I already decided long ago that when I release somthing to freestuff, it will truely be free. I state, "use and abuse as you see fit". Hell, if you can turn around a sell it, good for you. The whole purpose of freestuff is to put somthing out there for the benefit of others, not yourself. And I think a lot of people have lost sight of that. It's not suprising though, considering the self-centered, infantile society we live in now.

The one and only exception to my no free stuff rule is Daz, because they are the best Poser-related company I've encountered (every interaction i've had with them has been positive, without exception, like the way Anton immediately fixed that problem with the Droid as soon as someone discovered it) and i want to give them all the support I can. their freebies seem to be more in the way an expression of appreciation for all the support they've gotten from their customers besides all their stuff has the same EULA as the purchased stuff. Daz is in a class by itself.

In truth this debate reminds me of a gift-giving faux pas I once committed when I was fourteen. My (I guess) well-intentioned aunt gave me kiddie underwear for Christmas (yes, the dreaded Robin "UnderRoos.")And when asked by my mom how I liked them (in my aunt's hearing,) I said that they were ugly and that I would never wear them. Upon hearing this, my mom made me put them on immediately. Hearing my protestations from another room, my twin brother conviniently "lost" his Batman UnderRoos in a deep pile of laundry never to be found again. Having told this story, I ask who was wrong in this story, and who was right. I believe that both my aunt and I were wrong, and my brother was right. She was wrong for not realizing how embarrassing her last minute gift would be to a young adolescent boy. (After all, she had children my age.) I was wrong for publicly depricating the gift she had given me. Her poor taste and lack of sensitivity did not escuse mine. My brother quietly accepted the poor gift and wasn't humiliated in public. The morale: How this for a compromise position: Both giving and receiving requires a measure of social grace. The freestuff poster was somewhat amiss in DEMANDING that we respect his wishes instead of asking politely for it. As the potential recipients of his gifts, good manners generally requires one of two answers from us: (A) a polite refusal of his "suspect" gift, explaining that we thank him for what we hope is a good intentioned jesture but that it was poorly presented. Or, (B) we graciously accept his gift(and privately render to our hearts content,) but never post a "taboo" picture where he might see it. This seems the most appropriate way to deal with a poor giver. Being a poor receiver is not a valid option....IMHO. --lb