Here is the problem and the difference with the ERB type of copyright.
Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote books which he allowed the public to read and indeed resell when finished with them. He never allowed the public to use the characters created by him in those books or to use his words and intellectual copyright material in any other way, thus retaining full copyright control over his work and its derivative rights such as film and other and differing media usage from which he profited.

An artist at any of the market sites does much more than EHB. He or she provides the original material for legal reuse and commercial resale through other media, i.e. renderings etc..

From the Rendo licence:

"The Artist (Author) retains all copyrights to the enclosed materials. The Buyer is not purchasing the contents, only the right to use the contents. The Buyer may not redistribute this archive file, inwhole or in part. The Buyer may not store it any place on a network or on the Internet where it may be referenced by a third party. Buyer acquires the copyright to any derivative works created using this work, provided none of the original materials can be extracted from the derivative work by any means.
If Artist can show that any of the original material can be extracted from Buyer's derivative work, Artist can demand both the original and derivative work, and all copies thereof be deleted. For example, Buyer cannot make an image of a texture map mapped to a flat plane, such that the original texture map can be cut & pasted from the image. This is designed to protect the Artist from Buyers releasing work, which lets other users obtain the copyrighted material, and is not meant to infringe upon the artistic endeavours of the Buyer. Buyer may not make any MetaStream animation files with the enclosed materials, until this format can protect the original materials from being extracted. Items sold at Renderosity may not be used for illegal purposes."

So what does this mean.

1. If a games developer sees a great character here (think Laura Croft stuff) he can use a purchased Market character for any games product he wants to develop so long as the original meshes and textures can’t be extracted. Thus the artist (who still owns copyright) cannot earn a penny out of it. Indeed if the Games developer seriously enhances the product the Artists original copyright might no longer even apply to the new character. And the derivative rights such as film (based on the game plot and enhanced character) will probably belong to the games developer and not the original artist
2. A toy maker like Mattel can take a Marketplace character, pose it and do some poly subdivision on it and run it through a Cad-Cam Rapid prototyping machine and hey presto brand new Toy. Again since the original mesh and textures cannot be reverse-engineered from the toy, Mattel can legaly do this. Again with enhancement even the artist's original copyright may not apply. One of the chief toy-prototypers for Mattel used to post in the Rhino Forum here some years ago about the process, not that I am in any way suggesting that he would do this.
3. A clothing designer can do the same as the above, and a myriad of other idea-hungry manufacturers can do the same with any of the commercial products and most of the free ones.

And the above applies to the legal scrupulous manufacturers who would at least buy one copy of the product from the artist, Although with most products under $30 it is dirt cheap in terms of development costs.

But there seems to be a serious deficiency in the licensing on all of these products in that all of them can be legally used for the creation of a whole lot of products that are potentially very high earners with the original artist getting ZERO in royalties despite retaining copyright. Seems to me the thing is a bit of a mess.

And with the talents and product diversity of many of the manufacturers increasing, the attractiveness of such products to manufacturers with other plans for them is becoming obvious.

Regards
STORM

That’s the problem mrsparky the copying is not in the same media type, i.e. mesh to mesh.

For instance if a toy maker like Mattel decided some artists CG character and outfit would make a great new plastic toy product what is to stop them?

I believe there is protection and copyright rights for Film Characters like Lord of the Rings Characters and Harry Potter Characters etc.and Mattel and others have to pay to use them or likenesses of them, but what about ordinary 3D designers and merchants. Can they protect their ideas in the same way, and if they can, can clothing designers too?

Regards

STORM

Why are you SHOUTING dphoadley?Are you DEAF?

And why do you insist on sharing your irrelevant philosophical meanderings and quotes in this thread?

You remind me of Ron Knights. 

Thanks for your answer elzoejam. It so happens I know someone who uses 3D and 2D to conceptualise fashion design ideas and we got to discussing this very issue the other night after I put the Versace comparison up. The question naturally arose about design drawings/3D renderings and their copyright. Since there are many talented and original designers in the marketplace and in the freestuff area that I have watched here over many years (since Willows time) I just wonder do they have a right to their ideas if a fashion house or other manufacturer decided to copy them. That's all.

Over and out dphoadley

Regards

STORM

To put the shoe on the other foot, so to speak, I wonder what would be the case if I as a modeller made a cool new outfit with a unique design and Versace copied it for real world clothes and made a fortune out of it.

Would I be entitled to protect my design concept? Would I be able to protect my design and original concept from being used by them or others? Do I have any rights as regards the copyright to the design? Do I have any intellectual property rights at all?

Just curious, maybe someone has some insights?

Regards

STORM

If you used a real model wearing the real Versace outfit you would have bought their clothes, they would have profited and that (ad photograph) would be a fair usage of their product and I doubt if they would have complaints.

But in the above case it is a virtual outfit made and sold by Daz for profit and that outfit is an exact copy of the Versace outfit. In other words Daz have imitated the Versace design and are profiting from it and Versace might feel annoyed about that.

I dunno, it would probably never happen and I defiantly do not want to start a huge thread on the issue but I am curious about the copyright/intellectual property issue now that it raises its head.

STORM

"So if this is a Versace knockoff can I use it legally ?" 

Now that you bring it up, I wonder.

The Versace ad ran in all the main fashion mags internationally (Vanity Fair etc.). So say for instance you get a commercial commission to create a render for a car company advertising a new product and part of that render includes a Vicky model posing against a 3D model of the car and wearing this Daz outfit in the same colours. The car company places the ad in international magazines and Versace sees it and complains that there is an infringement of their design.

I know it is unlikely, and it will be argued that clothes are sourced from all sorts of places to clad models for real and virtual shoots., but what would be the situation if Versace got really stubborn about it?

Just curious.

STORM

When I read this thread I immediately bought Wardrobe Wizard and got a download link in about 10 mins.

I have watched Phil with interest and used his products for around 7, (maybe) 8 years and everything he has produced for free (a huge amount!) and commercially has been highly innovative and of a very high quality and always worthwhile. He has always been generous with both his time and his products and also with his teaching. These and other forums are full of his help to newbees and experienced users

While I have not even tried the demo yet or the full program, if this does even half of what it promises, it is a major development for Poser and worthy of great praise.

It just goes to prove - yet again - that all the major innovations in Poser have come from the little guys with the big hearts and the ability and tenacity to realise their ideas.

Good on ya Phil! I hope you make a mint out of this. You deserve it. Congrats to Kamilche as well.

Message edited on: 05/31/2005 18:28

I thought Ian Grey was the first to experiment with transmapped hair around the same time frame as Allerleirauh and Kozaburo?

Message edited on: 04/29/2005 04:51

I think I will join you Acadia ;0)

Keihan wrote: "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 are now talking through your hat keihan, trying to turn some perfectly clear legislation into a muddy and grey area. You might make a lawyer yet! ;0) Let me draw your attention to the following from the same link you posted earlier but on a different page: An Antitrust Primer (http://www.ftc.gov/bc/compguide/antitrst.htm) (I am not quoting the whole section) "Some cases are easier than others. The courts decided many years ago that certain practices, such as price fixing, are so inherently harmful to consumers that a detailed examination isnt necessary to determine whether they are reasonable. The law presumes that they are violations (antitrust lawyers call these per se violations) and condemns them almost automatically." Now let me redraw your attention to what the Dept of Justice says about per se practices and what practices they include: " In the vast majority of cases, restraints in intellectual property licensing arrangements are evaluated under the rule of reason. The Agencies' general approach in analysing a licensing restraint under the rule of reason is to inquire whether the restraint is likely to have anticompetitive effects and, if so, whether the restraint is reasonably necessary to achieve procompetitive benefits that outweigh those anticompetitive effects. See Federal Trade Commission v. Indiana Federation of Dentists, 476 U.S. 447 (1986); NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, 468 U.S. 85 (1984); Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 441 U.S. 1 (1979); 7 Phillip E. Areeda, Antitrust Law 1502 (1986). See also part 4. In some cases, however, the courts conclude that a restraint's "nature and necessary effect are so plainly anticompetitive" that it should be treated as unlawful per se, without an elaborate inquiry into the restraint's likely competitive effect. Federal Trade Commission v. Superior Court Trial Lawyers Association, 493 U.S. 411, 433 (1990); National Society of Professional Engineers v. United States, 435 U.S. 679, 692 (1978). Among the restraints that have been held per se unlawful are naked price-fixing, output restraints, and market division among horizontal competitors, as well as certain group boycotts and resale price maintenance." And from what the APEC document on competition policy said on what is US Competition Policy: (http://www.apeccp.org.tw/doc/USA/Policy/uspol1.htm) "7. Exceptions to Prohibited Practices Potentially anticompetitive practices which do not fall into the per se category (exclusive dealing or requirements contracts and other non-price vertical restraints, cooperative marketing activities, etc.) are analyzed under a "rule of reason" standard." and finally what the Dept of Justice says about enforcement: (http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/guidelines/ipguide.htm#t52) 5.2 Resale price maintenance Resale price maintenance is illegal when "commodities have passed into the channels of trade and are owned by dealers." Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U.S. 373, 408 (1911). It has been held per se illegal for a licensor of an intellectual property right in a product to fix a licensee's resale price of that product. United States v. Univis Lens Co., 316 U.S. 241 (1942); Ethyl Gasoline Corp. v. United States, 309 U.S. 436 (1940).(34) Consistent with the principles set forth in section 3.4, the Agencies will enforce the per se rule against resale price maintenance in the intellectual property context. So in a nutshell 1 Per se cases do not require a detailed examination and it isnt necessary to determine whether they are reasonable. The law presumes that they are violations and condemns them almost automatically. 2 Resale price maintenance is per se. 3 The Agencies will enforce the per se rule against resale price maintenance in the intellectual property context. The only commercial clause, in Morriss EULA, is a per se resale price maintenance" violation in my view. And the arguments as to why exist above. As a consequence it does not fall under a "rule of reason" standard. I doubt very much if the US Legal System is going to turn summersaults to facilitate your particular pleadings in this matter. The only question that remains is the effectiveness of enforcement.

"Resale price maintenance agreements. Vertical price-fixing -- an agreement between a supplier and a dealer that fixes the minimum resale price of a product -- is a clear-cut antitrust violation. It also is illegal for a manufacturer and retailer to agree on a minimum resale price."

Now exactly what bit of the above do you not understand. Yes there are grey areas in antitrust legislation but this is not one of them.

You will find similar legislation banning this practice on a global scale, in Europe, in Australia and in Asia. You will also discover that the USA has harmonised its antitrust legislation with many trading blocks so it can give its exporters similar market conditions globally. In fact, the US has been the single greatest proponent of harmonisation of antitrust legislation. The USA cannot afford to have exceptions to this, as it will damage its global trade.

You asked me not to play attorney earlier, but here you are cherry-picking the clear legal statements on this web site to make it appear as if there is a raft of exception to Resale price maintenance, whereas there is in fact nothing that applies to this case.

Wanting it to be so is not going to make it happen. Any Attorney that is FULLY BRIEFED about the issues in this case is going to tell you similar. Cherry-Picking is not going to win you a court case and you run the major risk of seriously misleading both yourself and your fellow merchants as regards the strictures of the law if you try to fabricate a defence that is grounded on sand.

You will find that ground ripped out from under you by the first competent lawyer that comes along, and the Merchants and this site will end up, up the proverbial creek. And the fallout from that damage will echo around the Poserverse. This is not a game of you besting me or me besting you. It is a serious issue that will affect many things. So, stop trying to cherry-pick the law to prove your case. I don't care, as the final authority in this will be a court and will have nothing to do with me. However, in your desire to square the circle, you might mislead a lot of people in the process if they believe you that what they are doing is legal.

If you are going to get legal advice on this issue give that lawyer the full transcript of this thread and the supporting documents and then see what they say.

Keilan if youre going to quote it, quote it fully, otherwise it is misleading: "Vertical agreements between buyers and sellers. Certain kinds of agreements between parties in a buyer-seller relationship, such as a retailer who buys from a manufacturer, also are illegal. Price-related agreements are presumed to be violations, but antitrust authorities view most non-price agreements with less suspicion because many have valid business justifications. Resale price maintenance agreements. Vertical price-fixing -- an agreement between a supplier and a dealer that fixes the minimum resale price of a product -- is a clear-cut antitrust violation. It also is illegal for a manufacturer and retailer to agree on a minimum resale price. The antitrust laws, however, 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." 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. However, if you make this a condition of the licence (no Freebees or minimum price $0.01) You are immediately back into this "Resale price maintenance agreements. Vertical price-fixing -- an agreement between a supplier and a dealer that fixes the minimum resale price of a product -- is a clear-cut antitrust violation. It also is illegal for a manufacturer and retailer to agree on a minimum resale price." Therefore, I don't think there is any relief in this for the current EULA under debate.

The last 2 paragraphs of my last post should read: The above paragraph (second para) is giving the courts (IMHO) the right to deem certain things per se illegal as they emerge in the course of a case (and add them to the list of already illegal per se items). The last sentance is stating things that have already been determined per se as illegal and are already blanket banned. I would suggest that any case brought to the authorities exhibiting one of these blanket ban items is going to be automatically deemed illegal.

Yes keihan I read that yesterday. The point is that in cases where "naked price-fixing, output restraints, and market division among horizontal competitors, as well as certain group boycotts and resale price maintenance" occur" it appears to me thatthe courts automatically truncate the case because this is deemed per se illegal. " In the vast majority of cases, restraints in intellectual property licensing arrangements are evaluated under the rule of reason. The Agencies' general approach in analyzing a licensing restraint under the rule of reason is to inquire whether the restraint is likely to have anticompetitive effects and, if so, whether the restraint is reasonably necessary to achieve procompetitive benefits that outweigh those anticompetitive effects. See Federal Trade Commission v. Indiana Federation of Dentists, 476 U.S. 447 (1986); NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, 468 U.S. 85 (1984); Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 441 U.S. 1 (1979); 7 Phillip E. Areeda, Antitrust Law 1502 (1986). See also part 4. In some cases, however, the courts conclude that a restraint's "nature and necessary effect are so plainly anticompetitive" that it should be treated as unlawful per se, without an elaborate inquiry into the restraint's likely competitive effect. Federal Trade Commission v. Superior Court Trial Lawyers Association, 493 U.S. 411, 433 (1990); National Society of Professional Engineers v. United States, 435 U.S. 679, 692 (1978). Among the restraints that have been held per se unlawful are naked price-fixing, output restraints, and market division among horizontal competitors, as well as certain group boycotts and resale price maintenance." The above paragraph is giving the courts (IMHO) the right to per se deem certain things illegal as they emerge in the course of that case (and add them to the list of per se items). The last sentance is stating things that have already been determined per se as illegal and are already blanket banned. I would suggest that any case brought to the authorities exhibitiong one of these blanket ban items is going to be automatically deemed illegal.

"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." Yes they are. 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. Secondly the person who bought the pack from Morris or any other merchant, has rights to redistibute within copyright limits for a price or for Free. Manufacturers cannot determine at what price a redistribution takes place that is illegal under resale price maintenance. And yes you can have a price of $0.00, or sign my guestbook or whistle Dixie. Stopping or restricting someone from selling at a price of $0.00 is resale price maintenance. Insisting that an item has to be sold at a price above $0.00 i.e. $0.01 or greater is resale price maintenance. And that looks like it is blanket banned.