1 threads found!
Thread | Author | Replies | Views | Last Reply |
---|---|---|---|---|
HonorMac | 9 | 46 |
27 comments found!
It's true that both hobbyist and professional can be "artists". It's true that "hobbyist" and "professional" are not mutually exclusive... I'm both. It's true that there is not a definitive and mandated difference in skill level... Very often and in many fields of human endeavor, it's the "hobbyist," who does what s/he does out of love, who is more capable or knowledgeable than the "professional" who does it because s/he has to. It's also, unfortunately, true that any word, accurate and wholly apt or not, can be used to hurt, or used in an intentionally hurtful way. I'd suggest it's very often done in defense of one's ego... Just as you can rarely find anyone more vociferous in, say, the Mac/PC debate than someone who's just spent a few thousand dollars on one or the other... Once a boy's spent a few thousand dollars an a single piece of software, it wouldn't surprise me if he named everyone who used anything else - particularly someone who got better results from a few hundred dollars worth of software and add ons - a hack. When they see work like Cath's (and so many others here) their little ego's have just got to be trembling... :-) I dunno... I sure like "poser dilettante" a lot. Wait... How about "Dilettante Poseur"?? That sounds awfully impressive, despite proper dictionery definitions :-) I just wanna someday be one of the Others with Cath, et al... I guess that means I better shut up and get back to practising my hobbyism, huh?
Thread: Horse blanket | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
raises her hand Me too! 'Nother interested... Um. No. Wait. I'm very interested, but I ain't saying anything about horsenuts. ;-)
Thread: Big request for you incredible remappers! | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
Oh, yeah... It helps! :-) Thank you! I've had to save it, so I can go back and re-read it a lot... And it's told me yet another reason I need to budget the money for UVM Pro... And, it's hinted to me how much I still need to learn about all this, but it's pointed me in the right direction, too. Thank you again :-)
Thread: Big request for you incredible remappers! | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
Actually, I was of a mind it was a lot more, until you reminded me how much I paid for V2 way back when... But I still won't be buying more toys until some of the dust settles around the xmas bills. I think I can re-map it ok... I've remapped a few other things to get my own textures to work better. What I'm not sure about is re-distribution... If you re-map something you have to save a new version of the .OBJ, right? And you can't pass that around, right? Someone? Help? There are a few other things in the MP I'd like to produce re-mapped textures for, if someone can tell me if this is do-able and how to do it... Obviously, I can't / won't / don't want to mess with distribution and copyright...
Thread: Big request for you incredible remappers! | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
sighs I'm still a few projects away from being able to justify spending the money on P5... But this definately goes down on the list of reasons to do so. I keep thinking maybe I need a new computer first, but I've also heard it behave a lot better if you don't add (or remove or something) the stuff you're not using? I guess that'll make more sense once I'm using it. And, Ihiannon... I know, you're right of course. With PC membership, everything native to the figure herself (except the hi-res tex) comes in at $27.96... And they'll get it from me, of course... Just gotta wait a week or so. Part of me still hates to start this whole clothing and textures buying thing all over again, though. I guess part of the idea of the unimesh is that the same textures will fit, right? Now I just need to learn how to "tailor" clothes, or make 'em or something :-)
Thread: Big request for you incredible remappers! | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
I'd love to give it a try (although I don't get anywhere near the "ultra-talented" list..) but I'd have to buy the dress, and there'd be little point in that unless I bought the S3 base... and of course then I'd need the facial and body morphs, the texture sets... And as impressed as I am that our good neighbors in Utah have managed to up the price of models to fifty or a hundred bucks before you can really do anything, without ever actually saying "That'll be a hundred bucks, ma'am." I just don't really that much wanna reward them for thier cleverness with another hundred bucks quite this soon... But then Steffi flexes those muscles, and I just get all weak... So who knows. ;-) But seriously... Doesn't look like it's be all that difficult, really, does it? (I know... Famous last words)
Thread: Mayn for 3Dcommune Alexa! | Forum: MarketPlace Showcase
Thread: CHECK THIS OUT WOAH!!! | Forum: MarketPlace Showcase
Need a nap? Hardly, but thanks for the concern though. :) How 'bout a cookie? Glass of milk? Wine? An apology perhaps? I'm sorry. I think I took issue more with the word "speculation" than with the (correct) assumption that I am not a practicing lawyer. The points I have posted are neither speculation, conjecture, or guesswork, and I try to never let any argument be colored by my "beliefs". They are however, like the entire field and practise of law, heavily influenced by interpretation. Interpretation of code and precedent is just how law works. What they should be considered, though, is hearsay. In that way, I agree entirely with you that, until our original poster either does the remaining research for themselves, and/or seeks qualified professional counsel, they cannot intelligently use the advice given here as anything more than a starting point. We've both said enough times that all this is just a first step, and that counsel must be sought to close the deal. As to the "not an attorney" part... An attorney is just someone who's taken three years of school and passed a test. The test has everything to do with character, ethics, logic, and communication skills and not a whit to do with intellectual property law. I (and in all likelihood, you, and many of the people who have posted on this subject in this thread and others) know considerably more about this topic than perhaps some 85 to 90 percent of practising attorney's out there. They don't teach you law in law school... They teach you legal reasoning, procedure, legal writing, and research methods. To learn law, you go to a law library. I don't think it can be stressed enough that you can't just seek out an attorney, but need an attorney who specializes in these property issues, and knows and understands your potential product and your acceptable risk level. Without that, the advice you get from your attorney won't likely be any better or more valuable than the advice you're getting here. I still think asking working artists is a fine way to begin such research, but we remain in violent agreement that it's only a first step. ~Honor
Thread: CHECK THIS OUT WOAH!!! | Forum: MarketPlace Showcase
Wow. I think someone needs a nap. Some of us may not have gotten this far in our reasoning, but asking around a community of professional and amateur artists is part of the research process. Without addressing anyone in particular, especially anyone who's login begins with a Q... It's a bit reckless to assume that no one else knows anything about a given subject just because you don't. The licensing options I've suggested will stand up to international property protection laws as well as any. That having been said, they're also just a starting point... I certainly wouldn't suggest (and haven't suggested) that anyone sell a legally sensitive product like this without seeking the paid advice of an attorney who specializes in copyright and intellectual property issues. Further... No amount of protection or backside-covering will stop you from getting sued, or being threatened with a suit. Threatening suit is a very widely used first step, even if no real infringment of intellectual or real property exists. Ralph Lauren, for example, is famous for this. It's like that urban legend thing about the ghost... Mention the word "Polo" three times and his attorneys will come running. A polo player created a magazine called "Polo" about - can ya guess? - Polo... an internationally organized sport with centuries of tradition... RL and co. sued, and initially won, even though thier claim was ridiculous. The case is doing well in appeal, of course, but it illustrates well that, A) someone can threaten to sue you without a good cause, B) they can even go ahead and sue you without said good cause, and C) they might even prevail if you don't cover your bases well, use capable counsel in courtroom, and keep pushing until you're heard. Not everyone can afford that, so the initial threat of legal action is very often enough to stop someone. Ratteler: "Okay, but James Bond is not a celebretry, he's a fictional charactor and covered by different laws." No... The laws are essentially the same, unless you're confusing infringment issues with slander/libel issues. "James Bond" is intellectual property, just as a celebrity's professional personna is a sort of intellectual property. There are two sorts of legal issues that can come into play over the use of a name or likeness: The first is when your use of the likeness (or name) damages the person in some way, and can be categorized as slander, defamation, or libel... The second is when your use of the likeness (or name) allows you to profit by "trading on" or implying directly or indirectly an association with the name, image, or reputation of the other party, and is typically categorized as infringment. If your art or product doesn't fall into either of these categories, then it's usually safe. This doesn't mean you can't be sued... Only that you'll probably eventually win. For example: If you say "Celebrity Bob is a communist and a wife beater." That's Slanderous and defamatory, and it thus typically matters very much whether he's a real person or a fictional character. (Unless you can prove it's true... then it's just reporting. Use a picture of C.B. or a poser model with the legend "artist's rendition" and you're as safe as it's possible to be in these waters) If you say "Celebrity Bob uses Meelg toothpaste, and so should you!" the laws are essentially identical whether he's a real person, a corporation, or a fictional character. Either you'd better have an aggreement in place, or be ready to prove that he does, in fact, use the product. As for "Click here for nude pitcures of Celebrity Bob!" I could see it going either way... Typically, it's a form of copyright infringment if he's fictional, and slander/defamation if he's real and the pictures aren't, or were taken / sold / licensed in a specific, private setting... Poparazzi style candid photos can be classed as reporting ("C.B. caught skinny dipping in CanCun!!") but there's a lot of grey area and room for legal interpretation. So... If you use a morph like the ones under discussion to create an image, post it on your web page, and say "Look... This looks like Cameron Diaz!" we can almost guarantee that no suit will harm you. We can't guarantee that the lovely MIss Diaz or her agents or assigns won't threaten to sue you, or in fact do so... But we can essentially assure that, properly fought, you can eventually win. If you say, however, "Look! This is Cameron Diaz!" we can almost as easily guarantee that any such suit will prevail against you in the long run. If you accompany the image with "Cameron Diaz endorses X product!" we can all but guarantee that she or her agents will be awarded damages, should a suit occur. So... FWIW, there's my advice. As I understand the potential product under discussion, it's not a tool that specifically allows you to re-create the face of a specific celebrity, but rather a tool that is flexible enough to allow you to create a broad range of faces, some of which "might resemble certain celebrities, as illustrated in reference folder X" So, go ahead and make plans to sell the product, but first... Write a good, solid, strong exculpatory EULA that clearly denies any connection, endorsement, or affiliation with any celebrity or the holders of the intellectual rights to any fictional character, and specifically admonishes the end user against using a specific likeness in a potentially illegal or unethical way. Second... Seek the paid advice of an attorney who specializes in copyright and intellectual property issues, just in case I'm some crazy chick in a shack in northern Montana, and I'm making all this cr@p up. ;-) You're not going to get a risk / no risk answer that you like... There is always a risk... Celebrity Bob could sue you for making a picture of your cousin Louie, if he thinks the picture looks like him instead. Just seek competent counsel and determine the level of risk you're willing to expose yourself to. ~Honor
Thread: CHECK THIS OUT WOAH!!! | Forum: MarketPlace Showcase
Sorry for the multiple posts... I keep hitting "post" and not knowing I'm not done thinking yet. ;-) Another noteworthy exception to the need to license an image is for the illustration of news or reporting. That's the supposed purpose for the above mentioned Corel images... If a newspaper was running a story that mentioned someone they didn't have a good picture of, they could use the clipart. You could certainly include the capability to create likenesses of anyone you wanted, using that as a primary or even significant intended use... I'd still include the licensing concrens language in the EULA, though. All right. I'm shutting up now. Feel free to email or IM if you have any questions. ~Honor
Thread: CHECK THIS OUT WOAH!!! | Forum: MarketPlace Showcase
Corel Corporation included vector drawings of a gazillion celebrities and newsworthy figures in thier clipart collections for years, and may still. The key there is that they always included fairly strong language in thier license agreement that denied any connection with and put the burdon of licensing the image of said celebrity for any commercial or questionable use squarely on the end user. You could likely get away with a similar arrangement... Basically, legally, saying "I've given you the tools to create this image, but it's up to you to see to the legal aspects if you wish to use these tools in any commercial or publicly displayed work." That way, you're disavowing any more responsibility for misuse than, say, the makers of the jacket in my previous example. ~Honor
Thread: CHECK THIS OUT WOAH!!! | Forum: MarketPlace Showcase
Actually, they don't have to prove it's "harmful" unless they are charging slander or libel... In the case of what we're talking about here, they just have to prove that you are making a profit by trading on the "image" that they own. Put another way... If you happen to look like James Bond, that's fine. And no need for any license, of course. If you dress up in a dinner suit, take along a Walther PPK and an Aston Martin, and get paid to show up at a function where a reasonable person will associate your apprearance and actions with the "James Bond" franchise, and you or the people who hired you benefit from that in any way, then UA/Glidrose is going to have a pretty good grounds for a lawsuit. The ramifications for making and selling a collection of software settings that will allow an artist to make an image that a reasonable person will associate with James Bond should be pretty clear... The ramifications for the end user who then sold such images would be even more dire, and the manufacturer of said settings would surely be named in any such suit.
This site uses cookies to deliver the best experience. Our own cookies make user accounts and other features possible. Third-party cookies are used to display relevant ads and to analyze how Renderosity is used. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understood our Terms of Service, including our Cookie Policy and our Privacy Policy.
Thread: If I hear "hobbyist" on more time....... | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL