I WILL RELEASE THIS IN JANUARY v3 3WEEKS LATER :-)

WOW! that's some collection of morphs...........can't wait, for both. 8)

What a nice freebie!

This will indeed be a wonderful and nice freebie, if only for those EAR morphs alone. For a round eared (read:Human) character, it is so hard to get unique ears. Thanks in advance.

2 months of solid work.......... a freebee lol ITS NOT FOR FREE LOL

Do you know what you'll be charging for it yet, ballpark? Looks very nice and handy!

... Then why isn't this in the Product Showcase? I come here for fun and tips and go there to start counting pennies.

probably start out at 25 dollars not too sure Ill se wat Dan Thinks :-) I will alos be relasing some cELEBRITY MORPHS TO SHOWCASE THE true power of this tool , ALSO i have not repeated any daz morphs all are unique and designed to work with the daz morps ie.... Ears Rotate .... MandibleRound HornsLucifer..... Wrinkle 1 also nearly all morphs ARE right and left sides :-)

Hope you have all the signed releases and requisite licenses for the celebrity morphs - unless they're charicatures of course.

hmmm good point... wat parmeters define a charicature ?? do u have any info or a url were i could investigate this? Daz has thDC (digitalclone ) section now , also sophie loren is an old v2 cr2.. not tooo sure ... dont wanna get into trouble. Ive already made ARny shwrzenegger , Arny normal. Arny for freak and Arny for DwarveM3

too steep for my pocketbook....:>) next time don't get our hopes up, just post it in the Product Showcase to begin with, please..... thanks

What defines a charicature.. Comedy. The Bond "lookalike" in the rosity store is a charicature. It takes the known features of a person and exaggerates them. The image included is a charicature of Tony Blair. As such it does not need licensing. Artists' rights of publicity are big business in this day and age. Many producers believe that if a performer is deceased, no permission is required. This is a myth. Under the laws of nearly every state, performers have the right to license their likenesses and performers both in connection with use in feature films and television programs (under union requirements) as well as for use as endorsement in commercials. While use of a performer may not be expensive for use in film and television, use of a performer in a clip in a commercial can run into five and six figures. In order to obtain permission to use the names and likenesses of live and deceased performers, a producer must contact the attorney handling the artist or the estate concerned and negotiate a fee The following link details what was done for an online astrologer - this was to use the face, voice and writings. Depending on the artist in question the cost for using a "face" might be less. Arny, Diana, Madonna, Tom Cruise etc etc would likely charge a fortune. They'd also want to review the "look-alike" to make sure that they wouldn't suffer from brand reduction. Their faces and names are vital to them, so will not tolerate anyone making money off their fame if they feel it is insulting or risky to their reputation. http://www.lawvantage.com/summaries/USA/Technology/InternetandeCommerce/SUM01412.shtml a little more information can be found at Brands and Imaging http://www.brandsandimages.com/ http://www.suzyvaughan.com/lawoffice.html http://www.netropolisusa.biz/gate.html http://www.therichman-agency.com/_about-rra.html That's a few examples of what it's about, how to deal with it, how to get permission and how much it'll cost. Just run a websearch on celebrity licensing and you should have more than enough information to find out how you can and cannot use celebrity faces/names without paying for the privilege and how to get that privilege.

For some reason the image didn't load. Oh well. For charicatures again, just run a web search using that word as the key and you'll get a wealth of responses.

yer coulndt see the pict... darn was keen to check it out...:-)

ok i viewed the bond file , pretty good considering its mike 2 mesh, but M3 has alot more polys so alott... more possibilities, alasmy models are like clonelol identical meshes, i can do charicatures too... It all depends on the texture i think... you dont need textures to know who I am creating, I use many reference photo , and do numrous numbers of renders the export the images to photoshop , drop the opacity and line it up with the source photo. The hard bit is finding side on views of celebs. I think the pak will sell well though... but this celeb thing just has to be done...alot of stuffing around get celebs off the ground... also was gonna model Osama Bin Laden, is he a celeb LOL

ahh ok good point thats the info im talking about..hehe ther must be a number of ways to get around it ,also I will only sell the Inj - Rems and fc poses etc..(but market them dressed with full body and head ultra hi res photorealistic skin textures)so they look real but put a note on th AD saying texture sold seprately, .......Rattleer a question wat is MOR? do u mean and inj rem pose...would love to talk to someone whos been in trouble for this , or even somone whos been threatend by a celeb or famous person...

It doesn't matter if they're called look-alike or not, that's a myth. Professional "look-alikes" have to be licensed as well. It's still effectively illegal without a license. Only charicatures are protected under fair use laws as a result of comedy/parody. However, have fun. Have a blast, do whatever. That's the trend.

blast, forgot to uncheck the dopey reply thing. Happy whatever it is you celebrate. :)

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.

well i must say intersting points of view on both sides ok heres another model im making saddam hussein, wat would happen there ,,,, mabbe target people like that, Iwas thinking of Doing a Gary Coleman Morph for the RPG dwarves character, but hes broke , so i dont wanna rock his boat lol

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

Very cool! Nice work!

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

thnks heaps for the info, good advice from all angles , I will keep this in mind and try and put together some form of protection statement so Im not liable for legal action.. fell free to post here too... i dont mind as im sure many will find this chat intersting...

Look at all the celebrety look-a-likes among 12" action figures from Dragon and the like. Which are all licensed. Look, will you please stop speculating and research the subject. I'm not a lawyer, neither are any of you. Speculation is more likely to get someone into a world of hurt rather than find a loophole none of you have a clue exists. It's a simple matter to research the subject and gain an understanding of the law in this respect. Vinyl models of film, anime, whatever are licensed. Models and effigies of famous persons are licensed. The reason is because the "image" of famous people is their livelihood. They make buckets of money on their face and name. They will protect that to considerable extremes. Tom Cruise is unbelievably militant in this respect (as an example). Just one slip, one person mails the estate/agent and asks and whomever is ripping their image and name is in a world of hurt. Poser or not it doesn't matter. Worse is the fact that poser is so heavily associated with porn. Don't think just because Renderosity is a funky little site in Tenessee and Poser is a hobby program that stars, movie houses, SFX companies haven't heard of it. Poser IS used in media production and pre-visualisation for movie sequences. These people may or may not be aware of the stores and the sites related to it. Never assume anything. Research it, seek REAL legal advice, don't "think" you can get around it because it's "just Poser". That way lies a crippling law suit. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but certainly in the future sometime. And if you don't think that's likely I suggest you again research that around some of the news sites where stars, actors, media companies and other personages HAVE sued itsy bitsy little ordinary people for everything they own. Royalties matter almost as much to these people. On that note I'm done with this thread. It's a simple matter to research a subject, if you people want to keep babbling here pretending to know what you're talking about that's fine. Go ahead. If you get away with it more power to you. If you don't. Well, ignorance is not an excuse in the eyes of the law.

"Not many celebrities would sue you for using their face in a morph because they would look like a sad idiot if they did." Are you willing to risk everything you own on that theory? Lots of high profile celebrities have sued over such things, Tom Cruise being one example. And even if the celebrity doesn't sue someone else may. If you made a duplicate of Hugh Jackman then Hugh might sue, or Marvel Comics or the company that made the x-men movies.

erm i never said i disagreed , in fact i know you are right that is the big reason i havent released thes images or cr2s, i wont even show people lol(with the acception of Arny, also its strnge that it hasnt been done b4, too risky... , but ant any rate wer thers a will thers a way... just have to choose my people carefully , BIN LADEN AND SADDAM i dont think ther will be a problem ther, darn it ive done the matrix characters too.. if people see them they will want them sooo badly...a shit load of cash could be made if this is done right...

I think Questor gave some good advise.......less speculation and more research......don't keep trying to formulate a "justification", but instead hire an attorney. Doing your home work will save everyone a lot of grief. I certainly will not spend $25 on a product that I may have to delete later because of a legal snaffu.

There's no problem with the product. The question was about morphs that look like celebrities. A big part of the equation is how the look-alikes are used. If your doing some political satire pictures then they couldn't do much. Create a picture with an Arnold look alike and the phrase "My favorite webpage is ______" then you could have a problem. Also the one selling the morphs could get into trouble. Careful wording and the proper disclaimers are required. That's what a lawyer is for.

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

bungle1 I wouldn't worrya bout it overly much - Questor is right on this one but DAZ will most likely not allow you to sell lookalikes on their site anyhow. The AMG clone you mention that they sell is legally licensed from AMG and doesn't infringe. Furthermore just eht use of that package entails a seperate license agreement for the customer than the usual DAZ license IIRC, you can't re-create AMG in anything that reflects badly on her. Look alikes aren't all there is to it either. Heck you can't even use a celebrities name if it is deemed that you are doing so for the express purpose of creating a profit or to garner attention/awareness. Alyssa Milano's mother has made a career out of protecting celebrities like her daughter, Shannon Doherty, Holly Marie Combs and others. If you so much as use the name of one she represents in your website meta tags she will sue you, she has done so and has won several times, unless of course it is a suitable site (i.e. a review site) or authorized.

3-D Arena | Instagram | Facebook

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
-Galileo

ugh! It's late I'm tired adn typos reign supreme

3-D Arena | Instagram | Facebook

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
-Galileo

Oh and while I lost most of my links in my reformat I do have a few on this subject: A quote from Stanford University http://fairuse.stanford.edu : "Right of Publicity. The image and name of a person are protected under a patchwork of state laws known as the right of publicity. These laws protect against the unauthorized use of a person's name or image for commercial purposes--for example, the use of your picture on a box of cereal. The extent of this protection varies from state to state. (See Chapter 12.) " Also: "Right of Publicity The right of publicity grew out of the general principles of invasion of privacy that prohibited the appropriation of a person's name or likeness to gain some benefit. Within the past few decades, the right of publicity has emerged as an independent type of claim that can be made when a person 's name or likeness is used for commercial purposes. Although the right of publicity is commonly associated with celebrities, every person, regardless of how famous, has a right to prevent unauthorized use of their name or image to sell products. The right of publicity extends beyond the commercial use of a person's name or image and includes the use of any personal element that implies an individual's endorsement of a product, provided that the public can identify the individual based upon the use. The right of publicity extends to a performer's identifiable voice. For example, in two separate cases, advertisements that used vocal performances that sounded like singers Tom Waits and Bette Midler were found to violate the singers' rights of publicity. In both of these cases, the advertising agency had sought permission from the performer and when it was not granted, the singer's voice was deliberately imitated--a good example of what not to do. As rule of thumb, if the performer 's voice mimics a well-known performer, either accidentally or intentionally, avoid using it. In many states, the right of publicity survives death and can be exercised by the person's estate" Basically Celebrities are covered under a "right of privacy" from Allworth Press copyright section at http://www.allworth.com/Articles/article10.htm: "However, living people also have a right of privacy. You cannot use anyone's image for purposes of advertising or trade (such as using the image on tee shirts) without their permission (which you should always get in writing, as a number of states require in any event). A public figure loses his or her right of privacy with respect to newsworthy information, but not with respect to advertising or trade uses. In fact, a famous person gains what is called the right of publicity which is the right to profit from the exploitation of his or her name or image for purposes of advertising or trade. By court decisions and laws in a number of states, this right of publicity actually can survive death for as long as fifty years in some states. While some laws exempt single or original works of fine art, art in multiples is likely to be distributed nationally and be subject to the most restrictive of these so-called celebrity rights laws."

3-D Arena | Instagram | Facebook

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
-Galileo

also at Stanford University link above: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter12/12-b.html#3 "A person's name or image can be used for commercial purposes without permission if the commercial use qualifies as free speech. This generally occurs when the use is categorized as a parody. (For more information on trademark parodies see Chapter 10. For more information on copyright parodies, see Chapter 9)." But in the case of a commercial - or even free face pack we aren't talking parody. So while each individiual may create celebrity faces for their own "parody" use they may not distribute the faces for commercial reasons. Even if the Celebrity faces was a free package it still benefits bugle1 (or whomever cretes them) through publicity and such. If I bought bugle1's morph package and created a celebrity face of say the president putting missile somewhere bin laden doesn't like (use your own imagination) that could be a parody/caricature/political cartoon and that would be fine (with a disclaimer if the image is realistic). But if Bugle1 created the celebrity faces as a promotion to his package (you do see where that is going right??)...

3-D Arena | Instagram | Facebook

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
-Galileo

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 Not at all. In the larger majority of cases I was quite correct. I am not a lawyer and neither were any of those posting up until that point. And as you (HonorMac) imply, you're not either. So no, I wasn't being reckless but simply stating a point that was apparently clear at that time. If you wish to take issue with my claiming that nobody was a lawyer when in fact they were feel free to post or mail me details of your or others qualifications and which bar you're or they are registered with and I'll be happy to post a public apology. That applies to anyone supplying information in this thread who actually IS a lawyer. Until then anything posted IS pure speculation and without coherent and determined research remains speculation and conjecture based upon interpretation. Also, the links I provided were examples and as a base for further research, as I suggested in my post, NOT as firm and hard proof of anything. The simple thing that is overlooked by the larger majority of people when suffering the "wow cool" factor is whether or not there are any legal precedents, or information pertaining to the subject at hand, and the surprising retisence of people to research or understand a point. That you (HonorMac) appear to show some understanding of the subject is neither here nor there. Without proof of qualification I, and others can only take your posting as conjecture based upon your interpretation and beliefs. Much as mine was. Further research and solid legal advice is still needed by those who would profit from and advertise by using, celebrities. Need a nap? Hardly, but thanks for the concern though. :)

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

Cookies are bad for the teeth. Milk? Well, after seeing what the UK dairy industry does I'm not convinced that's particularly good either. Wine is ok in small doses and apologies are only necessary when a wrong has been done. Other than that I see no reason to further comment as I agree with the majority of what you say. Except. It is, as you say a fine way to begin research by asking working artists. However, the larger majority of people on this and many other similarly oriented sites are not working artists but are hobbyists and as has been displayed over and over in the copyright forum and in the store itself have at best only a tenuous grasp of the subject of copyright law and licensing. This results in urban myths being bandied as truth and mistakes that bite people hard in the ass. There's nothing wrong with asking in these forums as there are people who will provide links and information that is relevant. There are also a large proportion of complete amateurs who give wrong advice without qualifying it. For instance a recent comment on this site that "if you alter an image enough it's yours". That's the sort of advice that people don't need because it's completely inaccurate. On sites where there are a large number of professional working artists one tends to get far more educated and experienced comments in return. On this site, while there are professionals here the larger majority of advice is questionable to say the least. Another memorable comment from one merchant was "It's free advertising, they'll pay me or I'll tell them to get lost". As you say, and I agree wholeheartedly with, it's a place to begin research but the key here is RESEARCH and not taking the word of a forumite who could well just be some pillock with a keyboard and a ditzy clue floating in a can of Mountain Dew. I think that's where the severity of my response comes from, seeing a lot of bad advice given to people on this and other similar sites by members and in some cases the staff themselves pretending to speak from knowledge where they have none. In a litigious age like the one we live in today, it's a mine field to play with "advice" from a forum and assume that it's accurate or even good advice. Unfortunately also, a rather large number of people don't want to find out, they don't want to do the research, they just want a work-around and to sell for money. As a result we get infringements and flame wars and merchants' careers destroyed. All for the lack of a little thought and research. On that note. Merry whatever it is you celebrate if anything at all. Or is that what "Season's Greetings" means? Ahh, whatever. A joyous time to all.

Quotes from bungle1 in this thread that have given me pause for thought (above and beyond his apparent arrogance in posting the thing in an inappropriate forum in the first place): [QUOTES] a freebee lol hmmm good point... wat parmeters define a charicature ?? alasmy models are like clonelol identical meshes, i can do charicatures too... It all depends on the texture i think hehe ther must be a number of ways to get around it [the law] also I will only sell the Inj - Rems and fc poses etc..(but market them dressed with full body and head ultra hi res photorealistic skin textures) I will keep this in mind and try and put together some form of protection statement so Im not liable for legal action.. its strnge that it hasnt been done b4, too risky... , but ant any rate wer thers a will thers a way... if people see them they will want them sooo badly...a shit load of cash could be made if this is done right... [END QUOTES] Now there's far too much there for me to tackle in detail, but a couple of things occur to me. First off the product itself looks great, from the imge posted. Secondly there is a definate appearance of money-grubbing to the extent of openly admitting to wanting to find a way around the laws of the land in order to make more money (off the back of celebrities) whilst avoiding any attempts by such celebreties to claim any money for themselves. This is just dishonerable. Think about it, for a minute, please. If we see part of one of our renders, or a texture, or a morph being used without our permission we (generically, as a group) go out for blood instantly. Yet here bungle1 appreciates that what he wants to do will/is considered illegal by the law and by celebrieites "in general" so he's seeking ways AROUND that, so he can still use well-known characters to improve/increase sales? Forgive me, but before you ever get to the point of thinking "how can I make sure the law can't touch me" shouldn't you be thinking "if it's illegal maybe I shouldn't be doing it?". Just random thoughts, could be I read more "attitude" than was actually there, but this post has been one on a number over the months where a double standard appears to be applying (and I'd be first in line to admit I'd love all sorts of celebrity morphs and textures - but I wouldn't expect to start making money off of them without the rights to do so). Cliff

I made 3 charactewrs to go on the promo page but need some one to render them for me as my renders are not very good and they didnt want tme to use the promo i made and diplayed earlier...I f u can help me with this then that would speed things up, they said they could do the renders, but are taking way too long, if you can render good then i can send you 3 new cr2 i made for this pak prom plus 1 pose for each...the more real the better...