Quote - Would it be extreme and anal of you to think that they are violating the rights you have as an artist?

Maybe I'm cut from a different cloth, but it wouldn't bother me. However, I do understand that it bothers other people, and I respect that. But it's still my opinion that people spend way too much time dwelling over this topic.

Quote - The problem with this most recent example is that it brings up the question "Where do you draw the line?" If someone says "Well, one polygon should be OK", then someone will ask "Why not two, or three, or 1/4 of the model?"

Yes, where do you draw the line. What about things such as hex colours? If I mix up a really great shade of eggplant green and use it on the walls in my house and then see someone selling that shade at Sears 3 months later, did they steal it from me? Do I deserve royalties or the right to tell that company they can't sell the paint because I mixed that shade up 3 months prior and used it in my bathroom? What about if I see a painting that has pixels containing the exact same shades of blues as in paintings I've done. Does that mean they took my work into PSP to find the hex colour for their own painting? Like I said earlier, this entire thing with Copyright is becoming way over the top.

It's posted in the copyright forum as well. Some people may not read that forum so it's a good idea to have it here too. Besides, it gives a bit of a break from seeing all those "where is my Poser 6" posts :)

Quote - I'd say that any work - be it a mesh, a texture, a book, a musical piece - that contains recognizable portions of another work is a copyright violation.

Recognizable is the key word. Which brings me to the most recent case of DAZ making a site (Sixus1?) pull one of their figures because the artists used Vicky's hands. Now looking at the image you wouldn't see that. Only by ripping the thing apart and scruitinizing code etc, do you see the similarity. If it's VISIBLY recognizable, then yes, I agree that is stepping on someone's toes. But to go and rip apart figures looking for similarities that are not obvious to the eye is extreme and rather anal in my opinion.

Are you sure you are selecting the download version? I just checked my printed invoice for Poser 5 and there was no shipping charged.

I answered this on another forum here, but I'll repost here: I know the answer to this is yes because there was a problem about a figure having vicky's hands or something, posted in the Poser forum. However, personally I think it's stupid. So a skull cap has the same shape and dimensions as another. I don't see that being a problem if the rest of the figure is different and unique. It's a very small portion of the whole. I can see if someone did the reverse and used the entire figure, changing only the nose, or a finger or the ears, or in this case a skull cap. But the percentage of the figure being discussed is less than 1% of the whole. It's like someone painting the Leaning Tower of Pizza and then discovering someone else painted it too and both painted images lean at the exact same angle. Another example are cooking recipes. How many published recipes are there out there for kung pau chicken? Most have the same ingredients with a slight variation in some items as to quantity, with many ingredients being the same proportion. I think this copyright stuff is getting over the top. Someone could build something from the ground up and by some freaky co-incidence happen to get the same sequence of numbers for a small portion of their figure and suddenly find themselves in a lawsuit because someone claims they discovered that sequence first. I'll venture a good guess that everyone here has photocopied a page or pages of book (IE: for term paper research, or a recipe etc.), printed a page found online, taped a movie off of the television... all considered copyright violations

I think her face looks like an emaciated Arnold Schwartzeneger (Spelling?) Too big eyes, standard alien-like shaped face with pointy chin, too thin a nose with too wide nostrils. I just don't think she's very pretty. She's got a very nice body, but her face just doesn't match it. I don't consider her a great beauty.

I agree. Face it, everything for sale for poser here, at DAZ, PP, DNA or anywhere else is made by someone. So what if it has a name attached to it.

Oh, that Thurman chick? No wonder I think the face in the picture looks funny. I don't consider that particular actress attractive at all... because her face, well, looks funny.... disproportionate.

Message edited on: 03/27/2005 23:25

UMA? Is that supposed to mean something?

Heh, I don't think you guys are exactly looking at her face :P The face looks funny in the above picture.

Hmmm, the face looks funny.

I didn't see them, but it sounds like it was a blatent statement in reaction to the new posting limits where children are concerned.

Nope. Not alone. I bought Poser 5 only last year and didn't really figure out how to do anything in it until last October or so. All I can do is play "Dress up Dolly" in it, so I don't feel a need to spend hundreds to get a new program with even more bells and whistles. I still can't do my own lighting or poses, so I think Poser 5 will be more than enough for me for some years to come. Maybe by the time Version 7 rolls out I'll be ready to upgrade.