http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission. The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the authors observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported. Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work. The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission. When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered fair nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney. FL-102, June 1999 ***************************** http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs53 (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful. (b) Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or Adaptation. Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner.

and i did just that, until xoconostle implied that i stole something in my last render...

and the only reason I commented in this thread originally was to helpfully enlighten you, Becco UK, as to how TOS rules on some websites don't always conform to legal practices, but instead create their own laws, because there are very few laws that govern the internet.

if you paid attention to everything i said, instead of just picking and choosing what you want to criticise, then you would have remembered from that post last week that i said poser was already on this computer when i got it, that topic was dropped LAST WEEK. you're beating a dead horse. secondly, i didn't import anything into poser when those renders were created. I DIDN"T KNOW HOW TO DO 90% OF ANYTHING IN POSER when those images were created. I could move the figure around and pose it in various possitions. that's it. then i hit the PRINT SCREEN button, pasted it into paintshop, and converted to a jpg. That brick wall that you think i imported was created using windows paint - it started out as a 1x1 tile of brick (a FREE background texture for websites - its called clipart). I copy/pasted the tile until i had a sheet of bricks big enough, then rotated and angled it in macromedia's fireworks (which my brother bought and installed on here back when he was big on creating a website for his gamer's guild). 90% of the work in my renders were done using fireworks. Lighting was done using paintshop. The only poser material is the figure itself, with the grey background being edited out with the eraser tool in fireworks.

durp - i thought you meant post66 in the main poser forum.

I AM NOT STEALING ANYTHING FROM ANYBODY!!!!!!!!

uhm, ok... what about it? post66 is about rendering an animation...

its a demo. that's my story and i'm stickin to it. but no, methinks he's referring to my most-recent render, as he stated. i'd just like to know how he thinks i stole something in that render. glad becco uk detailed the concept of modifying something into something else, with the destroyed mesh and all that. i'm starting to get confused between what a mesh and wire frame is. or the difference between. i thought a mesh was the collective polygons. at any rate... no one owns a copyright, patent or trademark on the human form. and, for those out there bashing me for being misinformed, i have read the library of congress' site on copyrights numerous times. i refer to it somewhat regularly as i'm primarily a writer and do not want to be accused of plagarism by anybody.

xoconostle: "Don't let false notions lead to a situation similar to your most recently posted render."<< Whoa, what, now you're trying to say I stole something??

"first, remove the pizza from the wrapper..." "but why?"

Bloodhound Gang asked for permission to use a piece of music from an old '80s cure song, the permission was denied. so they changed one, maybe two notes, and used it anyway. it went on their first cd. They also noted all of it in the sleave of that cd, along with some choice words for the cure. pansy division rewrote the words to nirvanna's song "smells like teen spirit" and released it as a single, then later on a greatest hits collection called pile up. Then there's weird al yanchovik from the 80's & early 90's, (who mostly became a puppet for spoof songs, but started out on his own). It happens all the time.

exactly. and they can make you leave. but they CANNOT prevent you from coming back. I worked at walmart for years, i've dealt with these situations FIRST HAND.

no, one point there was a group of blacks, another there was a group of lesbians, both at completely different denny's locations, both cases were won. I'm thinking it was sometime between 1993 and 96. I hadn't heard about the asians and blacks.

If i took vicky and made her arms a little thicker or a little longer, and changed her name to vallery, then no. she'd still be vicky from Daz. But if I took vicky and made her 400 pounds and put warts all over her face, made her a bit shorter, gave her a different skin tone/texture/etc. and changed her name to 'jenny from the bronx' (heh), then 400 pound jenny would be mine. period. Otherwise, daz, and anyone else out there making figures, clothing, props, etc from the original materials/models that curious labs created are ALL in copyright violation and owe curious labs royalties. For that matter, anyone out there whose ever created an orc and called it an orc owes tolken royalties (or whoever owns the rights to tolken's work now), or anyone whose ever created a vampire that turns into a bat owes stoker.

No. you guys are blowing this all out of proportion. First of all, those signs that read "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" are mostly bogus. they're put up to thwart lawsuits. If a store is open to the public it means its open to the public. It can't deny service to ANYONE (durring normal business hours while the store is open for business, for those who want to get extremely technical), regardless of what signs it puts up. 99.9% of the time those signs are enforced and no one does anything about it. However, there are people who have been refused service in the past at various places with signs like that posted, and it becomes a lawsuit. Ask the owners of Denny's who suffered massive lawsuits when they refused service to two specific, and unrelated, groups of individuals. AND THATS NOT EVEN WHAT I WAS GETTING AT. If you go to walmart and cause trouble, yes they can kick you out. But they can't legally prevent you from coming back. Nor can they legally refuse to sell you something (IF ITS AVAILABLE FOR SALE). If you go to walmart and something happens (injury, damage to your personal property, etc), that results in you suing them, they can't use that as a means of doing business with you in the future. (Nor can they use that as grounds for not employing you either). For those of you who like to get technical, i'm just using walmart and denny's as an example. Any store or resturant, etc that is OPEN TO THE PUBLIC falls under the same laws. As for copyright and original owners, etc., I admit I was wrong for generalizing it as much as I did originally. More specifically, If one person created a prop for poser, (an EXAMPLE, people), and another person came along and ALTERED that prop, the ALTERED VERSION would, in MOST CASES, become the property of the person who altered it. (Geeze, now I know why directions on the back of pizza boxes tell you to remove the plastic wrapper BEFORE you put it in the oven)...