I'd posted here earlier, and then deleted them when I'd had a chance to reread what I'd written and what other people had posted. I want to apologize for looking ungrateful to freestuff providers. Freestuff providers are some of the most generous people in the world. They work hard, and share. Sharing is something we need more of. First, to the creator of said prop: Thanks for posting your free stuff. I won't download it. The restrictions are too limiting for any use I can think of, but I'm sure someone can. Please be a little more specific in what you mean in your limits too. What is "Occult"? "Erotic"? These are pretty subjective terms. "Occult" to me means anything having to do with religeon. I'm not a member of any judeo-christian sect, and my method of worship would probably fall under your use of the term "Occult". My Goddess would disagree. Erotic can be any aspect of human relationships. We've had a very spirited discussion on the topic of limits, and for that I'm grateful. I think we needed it to clear the air. Second: Future freestuff use by me. From now on I'll check the notes and requirements to see if there's a restriction like this. I won't download it. This kind of restrictive use seems to me to be a form of censorship that I want no part of. My postings here will be governed ONLY by the TOS of the sites I post at. Third: Use of previous freestuff downloaded by me. I ain't going to check all the stuff I've downloaded in the past for the same limits. There's way too much. If you see something that you provided in a post by me that you don't approve of, let me know privatly, and I'll delete your stuff from my machine and never use it again. I'll also never download anything else you put up, delete the rest of the props I have from you, and NEVER buy from you. I'll expect a refund for any purchased product. I'll post a public apology if you like, so others will know that your stuff is to be used only in your approved manner. I'll also expect you to let anyone else know the same way. I think this kind of restriction is pretty damn lame, and want no part of it. Anything I upload to freestuff you can use any way you like. Have a ball. Have two, and show them to the world. Forth: What I'd really like to see is a line on the upload page for freestuff and the MP saying that no limits or liabilities can be placed on the user of the item other than commercial limits. I don't want to have to worry about making a mistake. The basic TOS here covers final posted art for here, but other sites are more open to the sexual or violent side of human nature. I'm not going to seperate out my props into libraries by usage rules. Screw that for a lark. I've got enough trouble keeping them all straight.

Legume, may I use it as a column? After all, columns are so...phallic. Thank you to all freestuff providers. You do deserve our praise and gratitude.

And... on that note.. i am ------------> Outta here.. woosh

I'm right behind ya, my friend, right behind ya.....

Here's my 'tuna' cents on this mess :-) " You must not use the model or any of its accompanying files for occult, horror, torture or erotic scenes (whether films or images) even if it is only for your personal use" occult, horror, and erotic do not have well enough defined legal definations as to what each one actually IS only torture has been legally pinned down as to what defines 'tortue' So the other three are open to varied determinations as to what they are. This part of the statement "even if it is only for your personal use" that is completely uninforceable since it is impossible to know what any user is doing in the privacy of their on computer. One could make a pic of a black mass with that prop helping to hold up the roof and unless it was put online somewhere no one would know it so on the whole as long as no one else sees it you can do what you please and puritanical wannabes with psudo greek names can't do anything about it.

If everyone wants to use that column in an occult, horror, torture, erotic scene so badly, why not just model a column that looks exactly like it? That way it will be your own mesh, but look exactly like the one in freestuff. you could do with it as you pleased! >8-b

it's not that anyone wants to use it, it's just that his restriction is stupid because it's so impossible to enforce. Suppose someone made and posted such an image then sent him an email saying "Look what i did. Now what are you going to do about it?". What could he do?

Attached Link: http://www.100free.com/dikaios/note.html

Sounds like the same religious intolerance that made an another bunch of loonytoons drive an airplane into a couple of my countrys buildings. It's pretty sad when all you ppl only see the legality instead of the message itself. :(

Excerpted from the site: >>you may create some horror scenes only to depict historical reality (e.g. a battle scene).<< Like the Crusades or the Israelite invasion of Canaan (and the subsequent genocide of almost the entire Canaanite race)... >>you may use my models only in those torture scenes that would be classified as punishment scenes, in which you depict historical reality (e.g. flogging or execution).<< Like the inquisition, or a witch-burning or the Israelites stoning unbelievers... >>no sexual activity (nothing more than kissing or hugging)<< Not even illustrations of Biblical scenes like Absalom raping his sister, or Lot getting his two daughters pregnant? really great book, the Bible.

~ROTFLMAO@ratteler~

both. at and with. ~g~

You bad Ratteler! LMAO :)

I thought this thread was gonna go on forever .... Besides that, I REALLY needed a prop JUST LIKE THAT... but, ... with all those restrictions and everything ... Thanks Ratteler, for the prop that I JUST HAD TO HAVE ... and ... ... doing something to end this gosh awfully l.o.n.g. thread. cheers, dr geep ;=]

Thanks Ratteler. Two things surprise me. 1. Nobody else seems to have realised that this guy is just plain taking the piss. Half a sword? 2. He didn't restrict its use in violent images on his latest 'offering.' Although what can you do with half a sword? Like you I can hardly wait for the next one.

Long time not been in the forum so late addition to this thread. 1) let me make it clear and I mean absolutely clear that I do not agree with placing such restrictive EULAs on an item. 2) many are missing the point that you do not have to dload this item, it is not restricting you doing anything outside the use of the item - so is it that hard to respect the creators wishes, you dont like the terms, dont use it. 3) for those of you who wish to try their POV out regarding not being able to enforce restrictions on 3d models (advised to reword this following section as it could have led to "issues")think of it in this way, Person A likes Company B's logo on their website(it is afterall a freely available graphic), decides it would fit in well with their imagerender, Company B a well known brandname doesnt like the way their companyproductimage is being depicted in such a publiccommercial way so thru gentle or hvy handed tactics forces Person A to remove said image. Been done before and will happen again and again as creator has the bias in all legal arguments where aproriate lic. info has been provided. Cases I am aware of are from the UK and USA, cannot comment on other world countries or regions. For individuals the case is likely that it would never go to court (at any serious level), and that a settlement would be enforced upon the renderer to abide by the creators restrictions or that a eg. hosting company would pull the image to avoid bad press etc. in all likelyhood both parties would end up lighter of pocket and hopefully wiser of loaf. As far as My lawyer said or my brother who goes to law school says (too much of that of late, common courtesy and sense go further and are a lot cheaper), I dont think matters. As far as I am aware and as anyone who has replied to this thread seems to be aware, there have been no major legal battles over this sort of thing before (either that or you all decided to keep it yourselves) and the above comments are only my IMHO, there have been cases related to illustration and 2D graphics work etc. and I think that you would find this sort of case lumped into the same kinda group. If it were it is likely to be treated in the same manner and the outcome would likely be as i predict. If however it is a 'landmark' case the penny could land on either side. This does bring up a serious ethics issue however and one perhaps the renderosity team should make clear which side they stand on. If 2 artists were in disagreement over this kind of issue in general where would renderosity stand - in support of the artists wishes or the renderers (I mean in terms of site admin (image in question - 'would it stay or would it go!') not in a legal sense, as I have a feeling Renderosity would do its best, sensibly to stay out of any disagreement which spilt into court) as mentioned just MHO, now go little children ride your pink ponies Legume off into your Cylorama sunsets Daz and render freely once more!

Even if it's all just for attention, he's not getting away with it. I'll just keep competing with him till he gives up. So for I've spent a total of 2 hours calmly doing what he did, BETTER! And it only took that long because I'm teaching myself how to UV map.

Attached Link: United States Patent and Trademark Office

this restriction is also a violation of the 1st ammendment. restricted religious speech.

Round 2; fight! (I'm sorry, it's just getting too, too stupid in here.) Geoegress, have you ever read the First Amendment of the US constitution? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." It doesn't even apply.

The 1st amendment only applies to legal restrictions, not to privately-imposed restrictions like this one. As stupid as it may be, it's not illegal. We can make fun of it, but we can't sue him over it. (which means I'll have to find another way to get the money to buy Poser 5)...

Well said Ratteler... and yes I've downloaded your versions as well. Your EULA I can abide to. His - no. Which, as you said, is what free choice is all about. And the fact you're matching him item for item only means my selection of props for my Royal Egyptian textures from Daz is going to grow. Thanks! BTW I've been checking the Notes & Requirements for a lot of the latest items in the Free Area. Hah! You guys are a mad bunch! Keep it up! :) Guarie

"I don't think any one has put the screws to this guy more than me." "That's the true beauty of what I've done. I hit him where it hurt... the right way." I've yet to see what the point in doing this is though Ratteler. I read his EULA and I also think that it is too demanding for the item to be especially useful. But what is to be gained by mocking him and trying to prove that you are a better modeler? If he gives up and stops making free stuff, what sort of victory is that for you? He never created his free items with the intention to piss people off, unlike what you appear to be doing now. You keep saying "Some guys never learn" in your Notes and Requirements, but I think he's not the only one who isn't learning. ;) SnowS

Cyberstretch I agree with you to an extent RE:Trademark, but it also applies to any graphic these companies use on their sites. Perhaps citing the logo graphic was an error, but one of the cases I read about was in fact to do with, of all things, a horizontal bar.

But what is to be gained by mocking him << Someone says or does something totally ridiculous, people make fun of it. Just as the law gives him the right to put those dumb restrictions on his pillar, it also gives other people the right to laugh him out of town. The funny thing about it is that he foolishly forgot to include "no blasphemous images", so howzabout a render of the pillar next to a nude Virgin Mary, or a crucufix with Satan on the cross instead of Jesus. (Unless satan is considered to be inherently occult). The Nude Mary wouldn't violate his EULA as long as there are no genitals visible. You could even have her legs spread withiut violating his No erotica rule if you're careful about it...

"Just as the law gives him the right to put those dumb restrictions on his pillar, it also gives other people the right to laugh him out of town." Having the legal right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do. Let's just ridicule everybody with don't agree with, won't that make this a great place to be? That's why I like to slap the piss out of skinny little "anarchists" and take their money and leather jacket, just to illustrate the point. According to their politics, I have the right to do that. Usually they want to call the cops or sue me or something. Hey, no rules, man. No authority. Deal with it. Aren't we all lovely?

From a practical standpoint, if you don't want something used in a particular way, don't post it on the internet. People will either: A. Not download the item. B. Render the offending image but not post it and possibly offend you. C. Render it and rub it in your face. The fact that most people would fall into A or B shows that most people try in their own way to respect other people's beliefs. Interestingly, I think if Please had been used instead of Must, even a few of the category C folks might feel differently. It's a question of how best to honor one's own beliefs while recognizing and accepting that other people's beliefs will be different. I'm not sure I always know the answer to that.

I still tend to agree with the position that it is better to simply pass on the item if his terms disturb you. He is GIVING you access to something which is his. He does not attempt to dictate what kind of art you choose to pursue, he merely has made a choice as to what kind of art he wishes to contribute to. I am a Christian. If I choose to model a crucifix and offer it in freestuff do I not have the right to feel offended if someone uses it in some kind of demonic scene? No, not unless I respectfully request that it not be used that way. The crucifix does not belong to me, but the model does. In no way am I suggesting that anyone should be restricted creatively. There is alot of dark art out there that is awesomely excecuted. (Alot that isn't, too...) I've never critisized anyone for their subject matter; it's a personal choice. He has the right to express his every bit as much as you do. Is it enforceable? Of course not. Perhaps he makes the EULA in order to satisy his consience. Who knows. I tend to be type A or type B of lmckenzie's list (#141).

"Perhaps he makes the EULA in order to satisy his consience."

Perhaps ...

I never intend to get into a flame war with anyone, so thank you for responding intelligently Ratteler. I am not one who believes that our rights are constantly being put in jeopardy and that we always have to make use of our freedoms or we might lose them, so I won't attempt to argue with your reasoning. Hiram said it well in my opinion; just because we have the right to do something doesn't mean we should. For me, this issue doesn't have anything to do with rights and legality, it has to do with decency and respect. Thanks, take care. SnowS

This has become ridiculous. What a pathetic, steaming heap of whiny pseudo-anarchistic rhetoric. What you're personally offended by is the simple fact that an apparent Christian expressed wishes you didn't agree with. His wishes are of course, beneath your consideration because of your superior spiritual and political understanding. "I can't fight on so many other fronts... but here I can make a stand." By golly, nobody's going to tell YOU what to do! You'll show him. There's the crux of your issue. I know that in your mind you are stiking out against Torquemada himself. You're fighting Jerry Falwell and Billy Graham and the Pope. But in reality, you're fighting a completely harmless stranger who made a simple, if narrowminded request. I'm betting is someone made equally naive restrictions of a different nature that didn't smack so much of Christianity, you wouldn't be as upset. Now, as a liberal, Pagan pervert, I also happen think his EULA is impractical, overly-idealistic and naive, but where I come from tolerance and respect for other people's points of view is considered "right" as long as no one is harmed by them. As far as I can tell, no one is being harmed by not downloading and using this file. You would do well to accept that there are going to be limits in life and not all of them are going to make sense. "It's a victory over some one trying to impose their moral belife (sic) in artist community." But you're our protector, right? Our crusader and champion? Because you have the One True Right and Only Way to see this matter. How could I be so blind? He's not imposing anything. Don't like the EULA? Don't use the product. You are free to exercise your own conscience. As for morals, I'm certain we have very different ideas about what they are, what purpose they serve, and what are good ones. Ridicule and disrespect for other's spirituality are not among them.

What's really amazing is that this thread hasn't been banished to the dreaded "Off Topic" forum. I thought only Poser related issues were supposed to be in the Poser forum?

Okay .. I can't say I read all of this and I don't know what the item in quetion is but I can see how it can be asked for. I know of one person that used to be here that had such a restriction on a texture for Michael. it was made from photos of himself and all and he just didn't want to see pictures of himself doing it with sheep or whatever else might happen. Was his asking and his restriction. If you don't like it then don't use it but it was right to ask for this. I am sure if you were doing it soley for personal pleasure and never posted it anywhere it couldn't be enforced but it was a courtesy issue. Anyway .. Just my two cents.

"Perhaps he makes the EULA in order to satisy his consience." Perhaps that is the reason. If the intent was to prevent such use, it is clearly won't work. On the contrary, a few people are going to dishonor the request purely to express their disagreement. Human nature being what it is, telling people not to do something that you have no control over is almost guaranteeing that that they will do it, defeating the supposed purpose. I'm not disagreeing with the right to make such conditions and yes, it would be disrespectful to openly violate those wishes. One could argue that it would be disrespectful to do it, even in private. If nothing else, this little column has led to an interesting discussion of right and wrong and perhaps led people to think about their own feelings on them. That may not have been the purpose, but it's certainly not a bad one. I have to agree with Ratteler on one point. Touting one's tolerance while talking about "slapping the piss out of," people you disagree with seems like an obvious contradiction.

I agree with most of what has been said here on both fronts. I agree with those who say that he has a right for placing restrictions on his freestuff. Good do it! It is your right. I know I will not use it because of it, and it is my opinion that the EULA is far, far too narrow in it's scope of use. I agree also that this guy has some (at least to me) obvious religeous fundalmentalism leanings and I will not get into a flame war about it. I will not enable that type of crap, at least not in this forum, but it is his right to have those feelings as well, not that I like it but it is his right. Just my $.02.