Very true.

I think my first handsculpted character took about 120 hrs just to create the morphs, then there was the tedious crap that I hate...editing the poser files and creating the INJ morphs (which back then had to be done by hand because it was a relatively new discovery and there were no utilities available). The 2 characters that I created only pulled me a net profit of less than $150 each. Not very lucrative for putting in so many hours. It's why I often stick to props LOL. Not to give away too much but my best selling prop has netted about 10x as much and took 6hrs to make..start to finish. It seems my simplest designs seem to be the best selling.. hmmm... weird at best LOL

I think what I was getting at is that one could discern that GND4 is a top selling item in the MP. Considering no one ever buys Victoria and uses her straight out of the box (thus they purchase a character package), I would think clothing merchants would take a close look at the, top of the pick, character packages on the market and at least design some morphs around a top seller.  Perhaps even ride on the coattails of a top character creator?

My niche is props and I spend more time researching the market these days than anything else. Sometimes if I am not sure of something and how well it will go over, I'll test the market and release something just to see how it will hold up.

I'll spend time perusing the MP for items on my ideas list, too. If I see the market is oversaturated, I'll move on. If I see only a few items that are similar and I think I can do better, then I'll go for it. If I can't do better, then my item is probably not going to sell well unless it is more original in design... unique in scope (like your Wizard's Robe is pretty unique... damn good work too!)

Sometimes I think I could sell 3D Rubber Dog Poop if I were so inclined because I would target it with a theme or something specific.

I commend you on the clothing items though. I hate messing with JPs, Rots and the other headaches that come with figure creation. I'll stick to my props for now hehe.. I can model about 3 a night.. uvmapping, texturing and poserizing takes much longer .. not to mention doing the promo images ughhh..

~Will

Quote - > Quote - Actually, creating morphs can be quite simple (or difficult) depending on the software tools at your disposal. I use Rhinocerous and it's "Flow Along Curve" feature makes short work of even the most difficult morphs (Rhino 4's flow along curve screws up morphs for whatever reason, but I still have Rhino 2 and it does quite well as does Rhino 3). There is still some tweaking to do later, but that feature will always get you close to where you need to be. I have created hand sculpted characters in the past and always used Rhino to create my morphs ;o)

Most vendors that do this have a whole arsenal of tools they can use.

Um, the point I was making is that including numerous morphs for numerous characters can be very time consuming. They're not difficult to make.  However, to include a lot of morphs for a characters, they can easily number over a hundred. It can take between 15 min to an hour per morph. If a morph only takes only 15 min to make (Export the figure to morph against, Sculpt, export out of the modeller, name, inject, and test), 100 morphs would take about 25 hours at best. 100 hours at worst.

On average, a vendor makes 200-500 per set of clothing they make (unless they're a top vendor), which means to keep things at least little bit profitable, they have to limit the amount of time they spend making each piece, or they'd have to sell them at three times the price. 

The last item I made (for Apollo) inclused over 100 morphs, and it took total of about 200 hours to make the whole piece. One would have to sell $1000 worth (after the Rendo takes their 50%)and not even reach the minimum wage making an elaborate piece like that.

Actually, creating morphs can be quite simple (or difficult) depending on the software tools at your disposal. I use Rhinocerous and it's "Flow Along Curve" feature makes short work of even the most difficult morphs (Rhino 4's flow along curve screws up morphs for whatever reason, but I still have Rhino 2 and it does quite well as does Rhino 3). There is still some tweaking to do later, but that feature will always get you close to where you need to be. I have created hand sculpted characters in the past and always used Rhino to create my morphs ;o)

Quote - Good morphs for various body type can take a long time to make. Each morph can take almost the same amount of time to model a new piece (before UV mapping and texturing), so at some point content creator must draw a line how many morphs to include, as at some point they could never recover the time investment in dollars.

This is one of the biggest reasons for limited amount of morphs in many products, you can't always make enough money on the product to make it worth while including large number of morphs. Even with top selling pieces.

As far as I know, GND is hand sculpted, and not s dial-spin character.

I'm not sure about CR2 Editor and why it doesn't handle large files well. I always use CR2 Builder and have never had any problems. I love CR2 Builder because it allows me to open up two files at once. One on the left and one on the right, so I can compare or even copy from one to the other, it has many nice features that I like and some I haven't even used.

Here is a direct link to the file and, if the direct link doesn't work, I'll list the page where you can get it (it is also in FREE STUFF here at Rendo)

CR2 Builder (Direct Download Link)

CR2 Builder (Link Page)

The page link will ask you to install  language set, you can just cancel it (Unless you read Japanese and want it hehe)

The convention ":Runtime:Geometries:tentman:filename.obj" should always be used in any Poser figure, prop etc etc ...

Using direct paths in windows convention is just poor etiquette (or poor knowledge of the contruction of Poser files.. which every merchant and would be merchant needs to take a crash course in if they don't already have that knowledge).

DAZ will not even allow anything into their store with improper paths... they must allways follow ":Runtime:Geometries:tentman:filename.obj"

~Will

Hopefully clothing designers will start including morphs in their clothing products to fit more popular character morphs such as GND4.

I'm not certain if Gabriel used stock morphs from DAZ, custom morphs or a combo thereof in creating GND4. However, adding the morphs shouldn't prove too difficult for clothing designers/modelers. The only catch? The clothing modeler would need to own a copy of GND4 of course ;o).

I also think it would improve their clothing figures' marketability and value if they add popular character morphs to their clothing items.

~Will

Nope Kawecki, that is your intrepretation of it. Just as Storm has interpreted the law to the very letter, when even the judicial system doesn't interpret it that way. Just as Storm keeps saying that the "Courts will decide"... No they won't. If anything even happened with this, the FTC would first have to get a valid (what they determine as valid) complaint. Then they would assign an agent to investigate the situation. They agent would then determine whether or not the licensing issue violates public trust. The majority of cases never even see the courtroom. The number of cases that are dismissed even though they fall into the monopoly category is very large. This would be a small case to the FTC and since there is a substantial number of competing products to this one (as alternatives), I doubt they would even consider investigating it. The situation is unique in the sense that most markets don't have a freebie market right next door for consumers to get their goodies. If you could get free produce right next door to your local grocery store, would that hurt the profitably of the grocery store? Yes, it sure would. Which brings me to an example case of antitrust: A farmer sets up a large produce stand outside a grocery store on public land. He doesn't carry bannanas, but the grocery store is selling them for cheap so he buys all that they have. He now offers the bannanas, he purchased, for free to lure in customers to buy his other produce which is offered for much less than can be found in the grocery store. Chances of this farmer ever getting prosecuted are slim to none because he probably isn't setting up a permanent shop, but nonetheless he is in violation of Antitrust laws.

Thank you nruddock.

Storm, that is the part you are failing to realize. Intellectual property holders have certain exclusivities based on the nature of the product.

You are the one cherry picking here because you aren't looking at the broad spectrum of the implication and it's affect on pro-competitiveness. That is where any agency inquiry would stop. The inquiry would ask "does this restriction have valid reason and is it procompetitive?"

You're mistake is to assume that the FTC follows what you are posting by the letter. It DOES NOT. It launches an investigation first to determine whether any licensing restrictions were made in violation of the public trust. In this case, the product itself is sold to create competition. The restriction was created within the framework of promoting competition in that it prohibits the item (an intellectual property) from being misappropriated, to a varying degree. It prevents the widespan distribution of said product through a FREE avenue which would thus drive the original value to the ground and the original's profitability.

Antitrust is not there to help the public drive the profitability of a product to the ground so they can get FREE stuff or items so low priced it hurts the competition.

That is the part of Antritrust laws you are failing to recognize.

In the end, I would simply solve this senario in one of two ways.

1. I would simply remove my friggn product from the market as to satisfy the bloodhounds. Most of us don't make enough from sales, since we only get a 40% split of the sale, to deal with such bickering nonsense; so why should we bother. Besides I don't want people thinking they can take my hard work, make a few minor modifications and delve it out as a freebie thus devaluing my labor.

or 2) Simply, offer it to sale ONLY to registered MERCHANTS (yes, that is legal :P ) and each merchant would have to pay me a certain percentage for each sale made (royalties). If someone offers a freebie, they would still have to pay royalties for each one that is downloaded. This is legal and would prevent freebie distribution. This would be difficult to implement here at Rendo, however, so I would just yank the thing from the market. As Ironbear stated, you win by losing.

Frankly I think this debate is a pissing contest. I will contact a prof here at the University next week and get her take on this. And no I will absolutely not give out her contact info, it is unethical.

If and when I get info from her, I will respond back.

Message edited on: 04/22/2005 16:07

*"Agreements on maximum resale prices are evaluated under the "rule of reason" standard because in some situations these agreements can benefit consumers by preventing dealers from charging a non-competitive price."*FREE is definately a NON-COMPETITIVE price.

There was no need to quote it fully. Some of it has been stated here already. I was pointing out the exclusions which can get lost in the full text.

Boy, you simply do not realize the scope of Antitrust laws do you? Again, you are painting it in black and white and it isn't black and white.

"Now note the words "adopt a policy regarding a desired level of resale prices" that equates to the RRP (recommended Retail Price) that most manufacturers give to retailers"

If that were the case, then the article would clarify it, yet it does not.

What this article is stating is that a manufacturer cannot force a SET price, however they can set a minimum, and under certain circumstances, a maximum price. This follows the fact that antitrust laws are in place to promote competiveness based on MONETARY profitability within the market. Giving away something that may remove profitability from another (and most especially, the manufacturer) is anticompetitive and that, in itself, can be construed as illegal.

Message edited on: 04/22/2005 13:44

Attached Link: http://www.ftc.gov/bc/compguide/illegal.htm

**Resale price maintenance agreements.** *The antitrust laws...give a manufacturer latitude to adopt a policy regarding a **desired level of resale prices** and to deal only with retailers who independently decide to follow that policy.* A manufacturer also is permitted to stop dealing with a retailer who breaches the manufacturers resale price maintenance policy. **That is, the manufacturer can adopt the policy on a "take it or leave it" basis**. Agreements on maximum resale prices are evaluated under the "rule of reason" standard because in some situations these agreements can benefit consumers by preventing dealers from **charging a non-competitive price**.

Storm said, "They all form part of the market because they can be considered market incentives or promotional items or inducement to buy future commercial items from that manufacturer or a plethora of other things, and they are governed by a whole range of consumer and business legislation, including such diverse things as safety/hazard legislation etc." Not necessarily. It is subjective in scope and application. If the restriction placed on the intellectual property is analyzed to be necessary in protecting the intellectual property owner's rights, profitability (monetarily) of the market then the exclusion can be said to be "reasonable". What you fail to realize is that these laws ARE NOT black and white and intellectual property, though, evaluated similarly to tangible goods, still is afforded certain rights under the law which are exclusive to the owner. These laws are subjective! If you are not an attorney that specializes in Antitrust and Business Law, you cannot blatantly say that such a clause is illegal. Even Acadia's attorney friend may not have the appropriate answer. Not all attorneys are versed in Antitrust and Business law... as a matter of fact, many aren't. I spoke to a prof here at the University and he feels that Jeni is within her rights but he says the licensing needs to be more pronounced and incorporated into the Renderosity license. He also directed me to another prof whom used to work on Wallstreet as a corporate attorney and she is well versed in this sort of area, however she will not be back in town until next week. I will talk to her then.

Attached Link: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/guidelines/ipguide.htm

"2.1 Standard antitrust analysis applies to intellectual property

"Intellectual property law bestows on the owners of intellectual property certain rights to exclude others. These rights help the owners to profit from the use of their property. An intellectual property owner's rights to exclude are similar to the rights enjoyed by owners of other forms of private property..."

Footnote: "9. As with other forms of property, the power to exclude others from the use of intellectual property may vary substantially, depending on the nature of the property and its status under federal or state law. The greater or lesser legal power of an owner to exclude others is also taken into account by standard antitrust analysis."

Storm, Items distributed as "Free" are not considered competitive in a market economy. They do not fall under the scope of antitrust laws, so "Resale Maintenance" does not and cannot apply. The DAZ item, mentioned earlier, is excluded from this because it does have a retail price tag ($39.95). The $0.00 is a sales price of the original retail price. This makes the item a tax write off because there is a price ($39.95). The sales price of $0.00 is a promotional offer and since it is DAZ's product, they are capable of doing so. It isn't as if they are GIVING someone elses product away for $0.00. If Jeni wished to give her product out for FREE that would be within her rights to do so, but Renderosity couldn't do so.

Storm, You have taken "Resale Maintenance" out of context. Also you have failed to realize that this particular application of exclusion (by Jeni) IS "pro-competitive". That is the key in ANTITRUST litigation. You are presuming that it falls under "per se" when it does not. It falls under the "Rules of Reason" as I have pointed out more than once. "Per se" does not apply here. These laws are not as cut and dry, as you may interpret, for special circumstances such as Jeni's. I have an inquiry in with the DOJ, to see what they say about this matter and its legality. I am fairly certain they will reply that it is legal in the context that it promotes competitiveness. For example, as an intellectual property rights owner, I have exclusionary rights to sell or NOT to sell my creations. I also, have special rights in licensing whereas I could license my product to ONLY those in a particular field or even particular geographic area (if you don't believe this, please read the antitrust laws involving IP rights more fully).

"2) Comerce laws. It seems that the clause is illegal under comerce laws." No it isn't. It doesn't adversely affect competition, therefore it is not illegal. I have contacted the dept of justice for clarification in this matter. I will also see if I can round up a conversation with my Law prof friend if he is at work tomorrow.