Battlecry of the uneducated? I have a degree. Copyright owner? Nope. When someone gives away a work, it is considered in the public domain. It would be a different case if the model were stolen from a site, but the models are given away, i.e. placed in public domain. Giving away a model and placing it in the "Free Stuff" category of downloads is making a clear statement that it is public domain. You insist on complaining about bandwidth... would you be happier if he actually placed the model on HIS site for download? No? Then bandwidth is not your issue. You are only using that as a crutch. As for the arguement.. "what if I want to offer it for free this week and sell it next week?"... Well, you gave it away. By placing it in the public domain you can sure as heck sell it, but you can't claim exclusive rights to something you gave up exclusive rights to. Daz gives away their free models... but when they pull them off their site and offer them on CD they don't expect you to delete your copy that you downloaded for free, and then run out and ask you to erase the image of their model from all of your renderings. Do they? It's simple, if you want to sell something, sell it. If you want exclusive rights to something, don't label it "FREE STUFF!" - As far as the news example above - Fair Use laws should cover that in the United States - Newspapers regularly run stories written by other papers without permission and are basically immune from copyright laws. Newspapers also can run anyone's photograph without their permission in reporting, as long as their stories are not slander or libel. It's an extension of Freedom of the Press (First and Fourteenth amendments of the US constitution) If I do a painting or take a photograph that I don't want passed around on the net, I take the common sense approach and don't post it. I think the "Battlecry of the uneducated" is more likely some phrase originating in some pro-censorship thought legislating fiasco such as moralityinmedia or in our current republican-led Orwellian administrations proclivity to legislate free thought, free trade, and free exchange of information.

If I give away something, it becomes the property of the person I gave it to. period. If I sell a painting to you I don't complain about where you hang it. I don't complain about who you show it to, or sell it to, or give it to. If you want to keep something as yours, don't give it away. If you want to control who gets it, send it to that person directly, don't post it on the web. Do I complain when one of my drawings or paintings gets posted to a newsgroup or a website? only if someone erases my signature and puts their own in. (hasn't happened yet) Do you also complain about how your models are used? let's say someone uses your model in an obscene image.. in an image that you would be totally opposed to.. do you have any say so in that? no, because you gave it away. Also, why cut the guys throat because one model's owner is peeved? perhaps there are ten people whose models appear on that page who appreciate the link..... perhaps not..... but should the guys entire website be taken down when you could easily remove that one model from your end. You guys remind me of the commercially obsessed individuals who want to charge for porn that is and has been free and floating around on the net for years. If I downloaded an image 50 times from newsgroups since 1995 I certainly don't want to pay some webmaster or avs to see it again. hrrrmmmph. If it bothers you that your model is floating around the net you shouldn't have put it there to begin with. The internet is about "free exchange of information" ... and information includes 3d models. Don't publish something as a "free" item if it's not free!

Wouldn't it be simpler for Sharen to just rename the file on her server? His link would be dead and you wouldn't be playing 'tattle tale'

lmao! :-)

Some cheese with that whine Rob? If I had a server I'd mirror his site just to ............ never mind, I'm out of this arguement. The kid aint doin nothing wrong. (sic)

I saw an image in the poser gallery the other day that said "The texture is Vicky, The model is so and so, the room is a download by Daz, the coffee pot is by so and so, the blah blah blah" ... nobody claimed copyright infringement because 1. the guy gave credit where it was due, 2. the guy obviously couldn't model on his own and his concept of poser art was in how all these things were put together. Nobody claimed that guy was a thief. Giving credit for sources is not stealing. Even in the case of poser 'artists' who use nothing but downloaded items and never model (if you can call that art) they are NOT stealing. And neither is this kid.

He gives a pic of the model, a link to the model, a link to the website that hosts the model. He is giving credit (and advertising) to the source for the model. He is doing nothing but increasing your website traffic. I honestly feel you guys are going off half cocked and will probably get his isp mad at him when he is only helping you. Jeez........ copyright infringement is if he uses your artwork and claims it to be his. If you didn't want your links advertised you shouldn't a put em on the web. I have no idea who this kid is, but I just realized how big a joik you guys can be.

wow, when will this be ready?????