I was wondering if anyone else has been banned from posting images in the DAZ Platinum Gallery?

This is a long story and I do not wish to name names at this point. Briefly DAZ's problem commenced when I kept having images deleted because they had been posted at other sites. Thus, the authorship of the images would be known at the voting stage.

I had not kept up with the ever changing rules which I accept is partly my fault. Fair enough at this point. Keep the images author hidden until after voting.

Shortly after, following another system change at DAZ I found it was possible to obtain confidential information of other Platinum members directly from within the Platinum Gallery.

I reported this in a forum post and was fobbed off with 'it's the weekend' type of excuse. So to prompt faster action by DAZ I posted some authors names of supposedly unknown authorship images.

The problem with DAZ's system was fixed shortly after and before the weekend was over!

I was later informed I was being banned from posting images in the Platinum Gallery and also I was denied access to all the DAZ forums. I was not given the opportunity to put my side of things to someone at DAZ.

In fact it was people who had been involved with earlier events who imposed the ban.

Judge , jury and executioner all wrapped up in one. I always thought justice to be fairly administered in your part of the world.

All this was up for review within about 12 months.

Those events happened shortly before the free 'Sara' figure was released and I was informed that I could not download it from the link in the gallery because I had been denied access.

I asked for an alternative download method for 'Sara'from DAZ sales and no reply was forthcoming.

A friend kindly downloaded 'Sara' to my system and I was subsequently threatened with serious action by a DAZ moderator. The DAZ ban became permanent even though no review had taken place!

I am allowed to vote for images in the Platinum Gallery and post any comments I wish about individual images. I cannot post my own images though! DAZ can't even get that right.

I have communicated with one of their (DAZ) managers(S. Kondris) but his ears are closed or he chooses not to respond.

My feelings about some of the DAZ people involved are they are malicious and vindictive towards me and continue to be so.

One irony though is one of my images recently made it in the DAZ monthly gallery!

Are you banned too?

Message edited on: 08/18/2004 14:03

You're telling us that you posted confidential information on the DAZ site, then obtained (by subterfuge) a copy of a figure DAZ refused to give you, and now you wonder why you were banned? I'd say it's pretty obvious. mac

In answer to your question, I know of at least one other person who was banned, for different reasons. I may know of a couple of more, for still more reasons. No comment on the rest though.

In all fairness, the person that gave you Sara should have been banned as well...

Message edited on: 08/18/2004 14:31

Jeff

Renderosity Senior Moderator

Hablo español

Ich spreche Deutsch

Je parle français

Mi parolas Esperanton. Ĉu vi?

comunism....

Must suck to have the whole world against just you.

Has anyone been banned from the DAZ store? That's what I want to know. ;-)

Why do you care? DAZ wouldn't be a company if it weren't for the Poser app, and P5 has rendered, :O), their overpriced products obsolete.

"Shortly after, following another system change at DAZ I found it was possible to obtain confidential information of other Platinum members directly from within the Platinum Gallery. I reported this in a forum post and was fobbed off with 'it's the weekend' type of excuse. So to prompt faster action by DAZ I posted some authors names of supposedly unknown authorship images" you got what you deserved, tough luck.

Maclean: The confidential information was provided by DAZ! Sara is a free figure and I ensured the download complied with DAZ's license. Check their end user license. In this case no redistribution has occurred and the item remains on one machine only. pdxjims: Thank you. martian_manhunter: Maybe - raises questions about how secure DAZ keep their files. DigitalVixxen: Another post above suggests it just isn't me. Perhaps I'm not just one of the silentees. randym77: My ban didn't extend to the store!

fls13: DAZ productions still make a few nice, value for money items. As DAZ tinker with D/S though, I suppose it doesn't really matter as more companies will spring up to provide Poser content. Farside: What does the person that initially made the confidential information available deserve? Is other information readily available?

So, if I find a site where I can see your credit card info, should I post it so all can see more easily in order for that site to fix the problem?

Two wrongs don't make it right. DAZ very well may have had that problem, but advertising it to all in the manner that you did is not the way to go.

Just my .02. Now worth .01.

Message edited on: 08/18/2004 15:59

Well, it seems to me you have been a bit hard done by; if this "confidential information" is nothing more than the authorship of some anonymous pictures, read off the web site, it's not a huge deal. It might have been more tactful to all concerned to email it rather than post it publicly, and this ought to have had the same desired effect of waking Daz up. Personally I don't have much interest in the Daz forums or galleries. They exist to serve the commercial interests of Daz the company.

Once matters get to the stage of publicly complaining in another site's forums......then I don't see much hope for a solution.

When one carries a fight "across the border", then a solution is still possible -- but highly unlikely.

Unfortunately.

Becco_UK -- your Uni Flow (1&2) product is great. Thanks.

Something To Do At 3:00AM

Jcleaver: If you ever do get to see any of my credit card info' please be sure top it up with some much needed funds. Phantast: Hadn't thought of that way myself. Thanks. Xoconostle. A very balanced and considered reply to my post. I too do not think it is right to name names. It would be better for DAZ to defend there own corner but as you indicate, thats unlikely to happen. I forgot about SIGGRAPH. I've been patient for 9 months so a while longer will not make much difference.

I'll ditto Zeno's thought process...airing ones grievences across a couple websites...rather than at the root of the problem only exacerbates the situation & makes things worse. IMHO...I'm finding myself quite annoyed with all these PUBLIC airings....in my mind it looses a lot of credibilty.

Becco_UK: If I had any myself I would! All of my funds seem to reside at the various Poser stores! ;->

Becco_UK, the nature of your query implies that you are a member of the Platinum Club at DAZ - for which you pay a fee. One of the advertised benefits of paid membership of said club is: - "Members Only" section in the DAZ|Forum If you are a Platinum Club member and you are banned from that forum section, you are being denied a service for which you have paid, and there is possibly a breach of the contract between DAZ and yourself. Of course, if this is the case, pursuing this angle may result in the ending of your Platinum Club membership as well; and perhaps your general store access. I suppose it depends on how important you feel the value of your relationship with DAZ is. 'Not very', going from a casual observation of this thread. I can't comment on the justification of your situation (not being aware of it beyond this thread), but I will say that the mix of 'amateur' and 'professional' in the running of the DAZ forums has concerned me from day 1 - and is the main reason I don't go there much. Indeed, I wrote to Dan Farr this very evening concerning another (unrelated) untidy mix of amateur and professional I spotted elsewhere. I kept it behind the scenes, though. I guess I still value my relationship with DAZ a little.

Apparently, from other threads I've read here and there, DAZ has a few disgruntled individuals in their customer base. I currently am not one of them. The concept that PJF brings to light, about their possibly being a contract violation between yourself as a paid-for platinum memeber and DAZ, is a valid point. However you'd have to re-read the platinum member TOS rules (all memberships have them, whether they're paid for or not). Most of the time, even if you are a paid member, if you do something that goes against the TOS for that site you still get banned, and they don't "have" to refund any portion of your membership fees. However, since there are very few laws that govern the internet, a lot of companies/sites/etc create their own laws which may or may not be in violation of federal/state laws and consumer rights. This means that just because its in a company's TOS, doesn't mean its legal (paypal, for example, is currently dealing with a similar situation where a portion of their TOS did not comply with federal law but no one said anything about it until now). So, just cause its in their TOS, doesn't mean its legal, regardless of whether you agreed to it originally or not. Which means they could still be in violation of something (contract, law, etc), by banning you. Just my two cents. do with it what you will. (there are copyright laws too, which a lot of people don't realize. For example, if you alter something in any noticeable manner, regardless of who created it, the altered version automatically becomes yours, with which you can do whatever you want).

PJF actually From what I hear the forums are a privliage and by paying a membership for the platinum club you are not buying into the forums. Sephyn depends Most TOS are seen in court as a binding agreement and if you agree to it by signing up for a membership you are responsible for upholding your end of the agreement. It does depend on the terms and if they are unreasonable though

"Of course, if this is the case, pursuing this angle may result in the ending of your Platinum Club membership as well; and perhaps your general store access."<< Not necessarily true. Though again, it depends a lot on the current internet laws, which are few and far between. But in the real world no company can deny a consumer the right to buy their products or shop in their store. Example... If you sued walmart for something, whether you won the case or not, walmart cannot prevent you from shopping in their store in the future, nor can they use that as a basis for preventing you from becomming an employee in the future. Its against the law.

If he paid for a platinum membership, and the Sara doll was a product created and distributed to platinum members for free, yet he was still denied access to it due to his conduct in the forums, then daz is clearly violating their own contract. Because, if sara is only suppose to be for platinum members, that means that in essence every platinum member paid for their copy of sara (and any other 'free' item intended for platinum members), which means he's being denied a service that he paid for.

Sephyn74 "(there are copyright laws too, which a lot of people don't realize. For example, if you alter something in any noticeable manner, regardless of who created it, the altered version automatically becomes yours, with which you can do whatever you want)." Unless the original that you are altering is in the public domain and if you don't have permission, the above is absolutely incorrect. A derivative work does not become the property of the person making the changes, the only thing they own (& can claim ownership/copyright) is the actual changes they make, not the original they started from.

if you alter something in any noticeable manner, regardless of who created it, the altered version automatically becomes yours, with which you can do whatever you want And it's deliberate misinformation like that which causes so much bloody trouble. There are a whole bunch of merchants in recent months who would disagree with that statement alone, before we even get to the point that it's WRONG. quoteOnly the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create a new version of that work. Accordingly, you cannot claim copyright to another's work, no matter how much you change it, unless you have the owner's consent.*** Want to check that? http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ14.pdf

Oops, sorry Cooler, cross posted. :)

************************************************************ (there are copyright laws too, which a lot of people don't realize. For example, if you alter something in any noticeable manner, regardless of who created it, the altered version automatically becomes yours, with which you can do whatever you want). ************************************************************ Sephyn74 - If you think this true you are very mistaken! I have read a number of art copyright law rulings where people were SERIOUSLY SUED--SUCCESSFULLY- with this mistaken belief that a "30% change" or whatever is enough for you to claim your own copyright. NOT SO. The artist only has to show that you based your work on their work- (not the "idea", which is a different matter.) People have been asked to leave the Renderosity Store after having done EXACTLY THAT- basing their textures on another artists textures. They only need to show provable TINY details of copyright enfringement to make it a copyright violation.

np Questor, fortunately Sephyn didn't post the above in the copyright forum... it would have been a crosspost feeding frenzy :-)

Heh! Looks like we all jumped on that at the same time! I KNEW this would bring out the COOLER!

+++++ "But in the real world no company can deny a consumer the right to buy their products or shop in their store... ...Its against the law." +++++ Nonsense. There is no 'right' to buy anything. A private sector purchase is a voluntary contract between vendor and buyer, and neither is obliged by law to take part.

Phantast: "Personally I don't have much interest in the Daz forums or galleries. They exist to serve the commercial interests of Daz the company." and these forums at Renderosity are not to serve Renderosity ...please...

Sephyn didn't post the above in the copyright forum... it would have been a crosspost feeding frenzy :-) Yeah, I thought of that, too. ;-) But in the real world no company can deny a consumer the right to buy their products or shop in their store I take it you've never seen one of those signs that says, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"? A private company with private property (such as a store) does not have to give access or do business with anyone at all. "I run a business" is not equivalent to "And therefore I'm legally required to do business with anyone and everyone all the time whether I want to or not". bonni

"When a man gives his opinion, he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch." - Bette Davis

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)...

**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.

NO! it would not. The ONLY way a derivative totally becomes property of the person making the changes is if the original has been released into the public domain. Otherwise you MUST have permission from the copyright holder before you can distribute the original as part of your derivative. edited to correct the inevitable typos**Message edited on: 08/18/2004 23:23

Sephyn74- You have obviously NOT been around the Poser Forum very long. There have been MASSIVE discussions in great detail about this subject. You cannot alter and redistribute someone else's work (Mesh, Textures, etc.) WITHOUT their permission. It's a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. BTW- this also applies to FREE STUFF. Free models, meshes, textures CANNOT be redistributed, even for FREE, without the original author/artists permission!

the ALTERED VERSION would, in MOST CASES, become the property of the person who altered it. No it wouldn't and the law is quite clear on this. You are wrong. It's a simple matter to check it - against current international copyright laws even, let alone more localised laws - I suggest you do so. As for refusing service, I can't comment regarding US law, but in the UK you'd be wrong, very wrong. A company can refuse service to whomever it chooses to refuse it to - with or without a deep and involved explanation. The only cases where this can be a sticky point is in the case of race or gender. In the case of "Denny's" you might need to be more specific. The only cases I can find relate to accidents in a couple franchises and one which is a racial situation. In that case it is entirely irrelevant to this thread because Daz are not refusing service based on race. Denny's Race Discrimination Case http://racerelations.about.com/library/weekly/aa032700a.htm and http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/9/19/201745 But, as there is more than just the restaurant chain I'm extremely curious what you are on about. In the second link the case was dismissed.

And just in case you mean the racial case brought by nine Chinese and African Americans for a "beating", that case was dismissed too.

http://www.asianam.org/updateon.htm

edited to add In 1994 Denny's restaurant chain paid out 54 million USD in racial related charges because they made black customers pay before they could eat. Again, irrelevant to this thread but...

Message edited on: 08/18/2004 23:38

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.

Sephyn74 - you may be confusing refusal of service with discrimination. No company can refuse service to an individual or group of individuals solely on the basis of their race, religion, sex or disability. Saying "We won't allow you to shop here because you're Asian" or "We won't take your money because you're Jewish" would be illegal. Saying "We're not serving you because you just gave the cashier a mouthful of abuse" is within any company's legal rights.

"you are terrifying
and strange and beautiful
something not everyone knows how to love." - Warsan Shire

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 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.

If this were true, then someone could purchase any product in the Marketplace, make a few changes to the product, and then offer it for sale in a modified form.

To coin a phrase: it don't work thataway.

As for the Denny's example: Denny's did not "refuse service" to anyone -- rather, they discriminated in the sense of forcing certain people to pay for their food before they would serve them -- while at the same time permitting other customers to eat first, and then to pay afterwards.

If everyone in the restaurant had been forced to pay first (I.E. - treated equally) -- then the Denny's case probably wouldn't have gotten very far: as no discrimination would have occurred. Of course, such a practice would have been bad for business, but it would not have been discrimination.

In any case -- a website is not a "public accommodation" in the same sense that a restaurant or a WalMart store is -- anymore than a commercial wholesale warehouse like Sam's Club or Costco. Such businesses are perfectly within their legal rights to restrict access to members only.

Besides which -- Renderosity doesn't provide public restrooms.

Something To Do At 3:00AM

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.

Oooh, my turn to cross-post with Questor :D And regarding the changing Vicky thing, you're still wrong. Daz make their own original models these days, and when they were (or were part of? not fully up on their company history) part of Zygote, well Zygote were official content providers for Poser. Changing significant part of an original work and redistributing it remains a copyright violation, no matter how much you change it. This is why clothing creators for Vicky often use a "quicksuit" which is a mesh made for royalty-free use. You cannot take Vicky into a modelling program, chop off her arms, legs and head and remake the torso into a vest top. You can only use her mesh as a guide for making your own models -by which I mean laying your own original mesh down.

"you are terrifying
and strange and beautiful
something not everyone knows how to love." - Warsan Shire

Changing significant part of an original work and redistributing it remains a copyright violation, no matter how much you change it.

Try this idea with the music industry.

Modify the words to a #1 hit song, and then attempt to claim the "modified" song as your own property. Try to sell it.

See how far that idea would get you.

The same principle holds true for 3D meshes and artwork.

Something To Do At 3:00AM

A) Up until P5 most of the figures for Poser were made by DAZ (then Zygote :-) & they still hold copyright over them. Needless to say you can't violate your own copyright :-) B) "Orc" is a term Tolkien "borrowed" (like most of his names/languages) The earliest confirmed reference to orc as an evil creature date back to Old English glossaries circa 800A.D. I believe 1200+ years is a sufficient period for any copyright to have expired :-) C) The term Vampire dates to 1734. Ditto B "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." Try doing that to the original Vicki mesh & distributing it as your own creation & I'll bring the DMCA powered +30 damage "hammer of god" down on you so fast it will make your mouse spin :-) D.M. Gorski Copyright Enforcement Agent DAZ 3d Productions Inc. abuse@daz3d.com

"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." So very wrong. The texture, if it were totally your creation, would be yours. Changing the apparent weight and skin condition and renaming the character would not relieve DAZ of their copyright. Just making these assertions doesn't make them so. Actually believing them would be no excuse in court, should they lead to action against someone believing them. By the way, one of the persons correcting your misinformation in this thread is DAZ' copyright agent. I wouldn't suggest continuing on this gravely mistaken line of thinking, and more importaintly, don't even consider trying to get away with actually doing something like that. It WILL be noticed by this very aware community, which does not take kindly to infringement or the sort of "reasoning" that infringers use to justify their errors.

Oops, another cross-post. Well, now you know who I was referring to. :-)

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.

Sephyn74, Copyright law is unique in that it allows the original holder to decide where & when they enforce their rights. If nirvana & the cure decided it wasn't worth it to pursue either case that's their decision & in no way diminishes their ability to sue the next person who tries it. That doesn't make it legal, nor will it protect someone if they do the same thing at some point in the future. and just as an FYI "Weird" Al gets permission from everyone of the artists whose songs he parodies.

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

***"first, remove the pizza from the wrapper..." "but why?" *** Because "people" are inherently STUPID, fucked in the head and ignorant. Also because there is a compensation culture that is out of control in the US and infesting other countries faster than bubonic plague, driven by ambulance chasers with no regard for common sense. So, in an attempt to foreclose certain idiotic law suits, basic common sense instructions are placed with most items.

Nirvana loved "Smells Like Queer Spirit" by Pansy Division, they considered it a tribute to their pro-acceptance politics, which it apparently was in part. Kurt Cobain said in interviews that he considered it a flattering parody. The two bands had friends in common, one of whom is a longtime acquaintence of mine. It seems probable the the PD members knew very well in advance that there wouldn't be any trouble. Anyway, as cooler mentioned, Nirvana could have taken action if they'd wanted to, but they didn't want to ... context was understood and appreciated. I don't know anything about the Bloodhound Gang / Cure situation, but sometimes artists choose not to pursue the legal route because of the headaches and financial and time costs involved. Maybe that's what happened there. Anyway, you've got some very wrongheaded ideas about IP and copyright. Do some self-education on the subjects, as others have suggested and enabled with links. Nobody is blowing anything out of proportion. Don't let false notions lead to a situation similar to your most recently posted render. :-)

I have no idea how this turned from a possibly hasty banning from DAZ Forums to a discussion of copyright -- for which we have a proper forum for, as well as FAQs and links. From the bottom, Weird Al is operating under one of the very limited and oft-misunderstood "Fair Use" clauses, the right to make a satire or parody. Parodies -- say, "Hardware Wars" and "Space Balls" are generally permitted, but the chance of a court finding elsewise means the big companies will still send lawyers sniffing around. I have no idea what Pansy Division may have done for licensing, but in the music biz copyright is a very big deal. If I were to walk out on the street right now, set out a hat, and start singing "Luck be a Lady Tonight" I'd be in technical violation (public performance of copyright work). And for counter-example, look at what happened to George Harrison over three notes he MIGHT have heard from a twenty-year old song. People do try to abuse copyright and the RIAA, try as they might, can't be everywhere. But it doesn't stop the behavior you've listed as being illegal and in danger of being prosecuted. And working upwards to the next post; what is trademark in DAZ's Victoria is the mesh itself, the specific polygons. They have stated clearly in their EULA and in material on their site that NONE of those polys may be used for a "competing product." Doing any alteration of the outward look of Victoria, as you described, would not change the underlying polys significantly. It would be like, say, taking footage from a major motion picture and snipping it up and re-arranging it to make another movie. Since you did not provide actors, recording, cameras, scenery, processing -- any of the myriad costs and artistic activities that go into making that original footage -- your cut-and-paste can not be considered a substantial change. It's still their film, and still protected in myriad ways.

Weird Al gets permission for all the songs he does. Look it up. I can't believe the level of ignorance of copyright laws that sometimes floats around. No, actually, I can believe it, but it still always amazes me, particularly when people absolutely resist the correct information when it's presented. It just always astounds me. "If I change it, I own it!" roll eyes As for business, NO, you cannot compel me to do business with you. You can't make me sell you anything, you can't make me let you on my property. Private business is not the government or a public building like a courthouse or public school. The Social Security Administration can't refuse to assist people, but by gosh, Joe's Fishing Tackle sure as hell can! bonni

"When a man gives his opinion, he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch." - Bette Davis

Attached Link: http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/2000-all/gall-2000-12-all.html

nomuse, Weird Al isn't protected by the parody "fair use" exception. This from Barbara Weil Gall an intellectual property lawyer (see link above for the full article).... "It is important to distinguish between parody of the original work, which is fair use, and use of the original work to parody something else, which requires permission. For this reason, entertainer "Weird Al" Yankovich has been unable to write any of his parodies to the tune "Purple Rain," as the copyright owner with the unprintable name (it used to be "Prince") has so far refused his requests for permission to use the tune."

"I can't believe the level of ignorance of copyright laws that sometimes floats around."

Well, not everyone is well-versed in the complex and sometimes confusing matters of copyright ... there appear to be some grey areas about what the grey areas are. :-) The DMCA for example is recent enough that court precedent hasn't been established for all possible scenarios, so I can appreciate that some of the ignorance and confusion is understandable. What gets me is the presumed authority with which so many people put forth things that just aren't true. If you're speculating, indicate thusly. If you aren't absolutely sure, don't pretend that you are. Pretty simple guidelines for saving face and avoiding the spread of potentially dangerous misinformation.

What gets me is the presumed authority with which so many people put forth things that just aren't true.

Yeah, you're right. It's not the ignorance, per se, as there are lots of things in the world that people just don't know about. With the idea of copyright and digital files, the confusion can, indeed, be considerable.

I guess what I mean is that I'm astounded by the stubborn insistance that one is automatically correct, without any research, facts, documentation, or investigation to back it up, and the amount of blustering and arguing trying to support an incorrect position.

Once again, my unpronounceable friend, you have cut through it and distilled what I actually meant to say. :-)

And I'd like to add on an ammendment to a previous post of mine: It IS illegal in most places for businesses to ban/bar people for being, say, Mexican or Black or Catholic or Female or whatever, as there are laws to prevent that sort of blanket discrimination. No place, as far as I know, has laws that require shopkeepers to do business with or to allow access to specific individuals, particularly when/if those specific individuals have a history of bad behavior.

Casinos, hotels, clubs, restaurants, and other businesses ban people on a regular basis.

bonni Message edited on: 08/19/2004 02:01

"When a man gives his opinion, he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch." - Bette Davis

Have to bookmark this....

the owner can correct me if necessary but phonetically I would imagine my "unpronounceable friend" would be fairly close to... zo.ko.NAH.stil

Oh, I actually do know how to pronounce it (more or less), but I suspect most folks don't. Also, many eons ago he made a joke about his nick being unpronouncable and I always remembered it. ;-) bonni <-- easy to pronounce, apparently very hard to spell

"When a man gives his opinion, he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch." - Bette Davis

I think if he actually tries this his name would be "MUD". The other name interpretation would be "Dead Duck".

always thought it was read "xonocostle"...apologizes cuz that was wrongly read on her part.... ;-)

I stand corrected about Weird Al. Actually, I suspected, strongly, that he had permission to do what he was doing. Intellectual property law isn't all THAT hard to understand. If you strip away all the helpful illusions and excuses what you have is, basically, is; "If it was created within this century then yoou can't use it without permission." People keep trying to wriggle about it with "Fair use" but that is limited, specialized, and also in large part up to interpretation -- which means if the guy you are stealing from can afford a good lawyer, you may be in big trouble. The flip side is, they might not care what you are doing. In general pictures on fansites from television and film, and fan-written fiction in the worlds of above, are ignored. These acts are illegal, however, and some studios have been quite harsh in reaction (recent publicized case of an SG-1 fansite closed down and the computers confisticated). I guess there is a connection. The major behaviors that got her banned were both IP-related issues. One was taking information that was classified as confidential and broadcasting it. Certainly, it wasn't secure, but that doesn't give the right to abuse that lack of security. The other involved transferance of a mesh. They have total right to determine how they give you this mesh. If they chose to make it only available from 5 to 7 Greenwhich and you had to use a proxy server in Bulgaria, then that would be how it was done. I am assuming, of course, that the EULA for the Sara (?) figure had the usual non-distribution language on it.

One of the things that is also often mistaken regarding copyright is that we're not ALL americans (yet ;o)) Allthough most of the copyright stuff is covered by the Berne convention and therefore is international, there are differencies from country to country. As an example, if I go to the public library and borrow a music CD, I am in my full rights to take it home and make a copy of it for my own listening pleasure. To gain that right, every blank cd here is taxed extra, and those extra money are channeled back to the music industry by COPYDAN. I may not, however, give away that copy or make more copies from it. The point is that there may be different rules in different parts of the workd, which easily leads to confusion. But a shop can ban anyone they please as long as it's not anything based on blanket statemenst like race or sex. A bus company can also ban people, taxis can refuse to drive to certain parts of the city and so on. All in their good rights.

The point is that there may be different rules in different parts of the workd, which easily leads to confusion. Understood. However, no local laws give anyone the right to distort the V3 mesh and sell or otherwise distribute it, nor do any local laws take away basic rights granted by the Berne Convention (such as the right of the copyright holder to control distribution, derivative use, etc. etc.). Not arguing with you, just clarifying, and not for your benefit but for others who may read this thread at some point now or in the future. ;-) But a shop can ban anyone they please as long as it's not anything based on blanket statemenst like race or sex. A bus company can also ban people, taxis can refuse to drive to certain parts of the city and so on. All in their good rights. And a website can ban anyone they please, and by various means. They can ban certain IP addresses, IP addresses within a wide range, specific usernames, whatever they wish. Nobody has the automatic right to participate in or view any website. You're there at the invitation of the site/server owner, and they have the right to withdraw their invitation. bonni

"When a man gives his opinion, he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch." - Bette Davis

Dizzie wrote: "and these forums at Renderosity are not to serve Renderosity ...please..." That is correct. Renderosity started out as a community site, and though the RMP has become more and more important to its running, this site is still first and foremost a community support site that happens to have a store. Daz is a commercial company first and foremost which has galleries and forum to support its products. Daz is a brand. Renderosity is not. If it were necessary to say any more about Sephyn74's statements about copyright above what others have said already, then I would add a further confirmation that what cooler et al have said is absolutely correct. A little story: Stravinsky once heard a barrel organ in the street playing a popular song that he liked the sound of, and he put a little snatch of it into the score of his ballet Petrushka. Unfortunately the song was copyright, and it ended up that, despite the fact that the little altered snatch of notes is about 0.05% of the ballet score, whenever the ballet was performed, there had to be a payment to the copyright owner of the popular song until eventually the copyright lapsed after the statutory period.

Sephyn, you're obviously not a lawyer. Don't play one on the Internet. You've already admitted in a previous thread that you're using an illegal copy of Poser. Don't make it worse by asserting your right to steal other artists' work.

You may be confused because the Marketplace is full of characters for Vicky 3, etc. But those do not include any original mesh. They are morphs or dial settings; you must own Vicky 3 to use them.

There are ways to distribute modified meshes. Free programs like RTEncoder "lock" the file, unless you have the original mesh on your hard drive. And there are "texture base packs" available in the Marketplace and Free Stuff, that specifically allow you to modify and redistribute - meant to give you a head start in creating your own texture.

Sorry if it seems like we're piling on here, but we take copyright very seriously. You might want to read a few of the longer threads in the Copyright Forum, just so you know where people are coming from.

dlk30341: Sorry for causing annoyance but this problem as been ongoing, in private, for about 9 months. I was asking whether other people had faced similar bans and the inclusion of basic facts was to give the reason why I was banned by DAZ (hey, a new image title 'Banned By DAZ').

PJF: Yes, I am a paid up member of the Platinum Club. I recieve their newsletter each week explaning how I can place images in the Platinum Gallery too and how I should participate in their forums! Who is Dan Farr please?

Sephyn74: I am not presently seeking any reimbursment of the monies I have paid to DAZ.
I see your views on copyright laws have been responded to lower down! The Sara model download was mentioned by me. I have nothing to hide and it saved one of the DAZ unproffesional people from raising it. I got tired of asking for an official, alternative link.

Cooler: Taking peoples work in order to redistribute has always been the bane of the computer industry - even in the days of tape drives! I'm not posting a self promotional link to my Tomorrows Woman image but following its release I recieved enquiries about distributing the actual model. All the copyright posts in this thread mainly refer to modified polygons and textures. The grey area is when all the original polygons are destroyed to produce a true wireframe structure. The original model served only as a material/tool in order to produce something unique. That I feel is where the grey area comes into play. I took the easy way and made my own head structure in a modeling program, converted it to true wireframe and gave that to the enquirees. Had I chose to distribute the converted DAZ model then it would have been very interesting to see DAZ proving copyright had been breached. Oh dear, is my permanent ban going to be extended?! There lies the problem with permanent bans - there are no further sanctions DAZ can raelly take any more for pursuing my grievance with them.

nomuse:a useful reminder what the original post concerned. (ps: the copyright discussions are a more lot entertaining than me going on about tired 'yesterday' artists at DAZ baning me from some of their services)

Thank you to everyone that has made a post - in some cases more than one! My 'protest' will continue for as long as it takes, but not here again. Best Wishes to all.

Message edited on: 08/19/2004 06:41

which successful poser community site does not "serve the commercial interests..."?
even rosity is about serving the commercial interests of Bondware.
so daz's community site is no different than any other community site

Actually, the pleasant thing is that so many people (all but one?) in this thread do understand that copyright, which is a bundle of rights including the right to alter and the right to distribute, rests with the creator from the moment of creation. The creator has the right to put the item into the Public Domain (irreversible!) or to transfer part or all of his rights, except certain moral rights, which are absolute under international law. Copyright expires over different time periods for different types of work. As Ernyoka1 points out, there are different protections in the various countries, but most adhere to the basic protections under Berne. About 20 years ago I created a set of 3 designs for cassette covers. That publisher had only the rights to make a certain size run of cassettes. 10 years later another publisher got the rights to make a run of CDs and a third publisher got the right to make a songbook with all of the lyrics from the 3 tapes. I have sold the rights to make carved wooden boxes, embroidery, business cards, trophys (really gorgeous in silver and black) from the original designs. I made hand-gilded limited-edition prints for sale. The original pen and ink pieces hang on my living room and ALL other rights reside with me. The publisher who did the CDs wanted to do a colorized version (his wife treated the designs like coloring-book art) and reissue the CDs and I refused. NOBODY else has the right to alter and/or redistribute my work unless they have negotiated that right with me in advance. This is a right which we all hold as creative people, and it is in our own interest to protect the rights of our fellow creative people. Whether it is a scriptwriter, a musician, an artist, game designer... anyone who is creative has made an investment which can't equitably be measured. Blasted lawyers are expensive. But losing the rights to control what happens to one's work is even more expensive. And, to go back to Sara, DarkWhisper controlled all rights until and unless he transferred them to DAZ. If DAZ has the right to control the distribution of that mesh, and Becco_UK circumvented that right, then I can understand DAZ making a temporary ban permanent. However, I have to wonder... why risk it? It isn't as though Sara was going to be only a limited-time offer. One could download her months later, and I believe that the second version of her is still available in the threads. As to problems with a contest... DAZ has had problems with other contests, both in the way things were administered and in the way problems were handled. It is their website, and their contests, however, and the only real solution is to not enter a contest if the conditions are intolerable. (This includes any contest where you forfeit your copyrights to a piece merely by entering.) Other websites have contests (Renderosity, Animotions, 3dcommune, RDNA, Ecletic Guild,....) so find a venue which is better and enter contests elsewhere. Sometimes one has to complain, and sometimes one has to move on. Carolly

hauksdottir: I feel a physical real world cassette design is entirely different to a digital file that can be used as a 'tool' to make something unique. If the original model is entirely destroyed by a conversion where is the breach of copyright? That's my thoughts about a grey area and is why I have raised that point in the Copyright Forum. My original post was not intended to start a copyright discussion. In saying that, I also recieve a few requests for original DAZ figures. Had I been as vindictive and malicious as some are at DAZ then I would given their (DAZ) stuff away. However, as I respect the originating artists more than the company (DAZ) I simply email details of DAZ's web site and inform the enquirees that's where they can buy the item. DAZ, in my opinion, should be more concerned about the underground trading of their items instead of me making alternative arrangements to download a FREE Sara. I suppose though it's easier to 'pick' on an individual registered with their site! Yes, other sites have contests but they are always free of charge and not dependant on having to purchace a seperate membership. It is possible to complain and move on at the same time!

Pardon this digression, but: Veritas77, I think bonni and cooler were referring to my screen name, not Sephyn74's. cooler, I'm sure that's it in some parts of Mexico, but I'll tell ya, everyone I ask gives a slightly different pronounciation, sometimes even a different spelling (tzoconostle.) I think of it as "sho-ko-no-stlay," but you know what? You can call me "Dean" if it helps. :-) Don't listen to Ironbear, my name is NOT "Fred." Anyway, Nahuatl can be a very beautiful language when spoken by native speakers. OK, back to the DAZ bannings and Copyright discussion...

"they can make you leave. but they CANNOT prevent you from coming back"

that's completely untrue. i have worked a LOT of retail, from my first job all the way thru college as a matter of fact. so here are a few times i've been involved in the completely legal act of banning or refusing customers. these had NOTHING to do with the persons sex, age, race, etc. it's all about what the customers action.

example 1: working at walmart we had a customer that was proven to have pulled a rack down on himself (we had security camera footage) and then tried to claim it was faulty store equipment that was at fault and that he was going to sue the store. he was removed from the store and refused service.

example 2: again walmart. there was a customer that repeatly brought back merchandise that he would use the hell out of then demand a refund on for it 'not working', things such as lawn mowers, power tools, grills, etc. after 9-10 items being returned like this he was refused service for a set amount of time.

example 3: as asst. manager at a bath and body works store i was appalled by some customers demands. B&BW has a VERY liberal return policy they will take back nearly anything, including used items. we had a woman that would bring in used bottles of lotion and perfume she bought back in the early 90's (you could tell by the label designs and dates) claiming she didn't like the scent (but some how she couldn't be troubled to bring the items back 6 yrs ago when she actually bought them). after another month of her exploiting the return system (and 20 returned products later) and her getting caught stealing $100+ worth of makeup, she got banned from further service.

example 4: as asst manager at a hotel i had to ban a couple that had been to our location before and had caused problems their entire visit. they distrupted the fellow guests and trashed their room 2 visits prior. so when they came in rip-roaring drunk and threatening me, i didn't hesitate to refuse them service. the hotel owners, and the manager supported my actions.

and my last example (sorry for being so long winded): a couple i am friends with got banned from a large shopping mall here for making out in their car, both of them were in the front seats, fully dressed, and it was the malls closing time, like 9-10 pm i think. but the security guards came up, hassled them for a bit, gave out 'Public Indecency' tickets and then banned them from coming back to the mall for 6 months.

stores, malls, etc. they all provide a service, and we have rights to use their services IF we abide by their rules. and as long as their rules are legal (no discrimation, etc) then they have every right to refuse service to someone not following the rules.

Message edited on: 08/19/2004 10:32

Jacqui wrote: "which successful poser community site does not "serve the commercial interests..."? even rosity is about serving the commercial interests of Bondware. so daz's community site is no different than any other community site " Most community sites have to take some money somehow to survive. That gives them a commercial interest to some degree. But Daz existed as a company long before it ever thought of opening a forum, and it makes its own products. Daz is there to promote Daz products. There ARE no Renderosity products; Renderosity is just a marketplace that takes a commission on sales. It doesn't have a product line to promote in the way that Daz has. And since the RMP is 99% Poser, all the people who come to Renderosity for the Rhino community, the Amapi community, etc, don't see any commercial side to Renderosity at all. It's purely a community for them. Is there a flourishing Rhino forum at Daz? If you tell me there is I'll be surprised.

Attached Link: http://www.fredsociety.com/

*Don't listen to Ironbear, my name is NOT "Fred."*

Oh, yes it is!

In fact, I suspect that "xoconostle" is actually the president of The Fred Society.

Something To Do At 3:00AM

Oh, man, a support site for men named Fred. Too funny! So, does "xenophonz" imply "other noises?" :-)

"But in the real world no company can deny a consumer the right to buy their products or shop in their store. Example... If you sued walmart for something, whether you won the case or not, walmart cannot prevent you from shopping in their store in the future, nor can they use that as a basis for preventing you from becomming an employee in the future. Its against the law." Which law and where? In the UK at least, any company has the right to refuse service to anyone, without stating a reason. Likewise, any member of the public can be barred from any store, with no reason given.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

Just a note on music - a recorded version of a song can be copyrighted, the notes that make up the song are not copyrighted, but rather published. An artist like Wierd Al does not need permission to remake a song from another artist (though it's still polite to ask) either in it's original form or a varied form. However, once he does, he will need to pay royalties to whoever owns the publishing rights. If he wants to include an actual soundbite or clip from the artists original CD, then he would need persmission to include the copyrighted work (though many musical artists seem to feel it's better to not ask, and then sort it out in court later). As for the oft mentioned situation of Walmart - they would be completely within their rights to ban people from their store. In what seems like an earlier life now :) managing a large retail store whilst in college, people that attempted to shoplift were regualrly banned from the store for a period of at least one year. If they returned they could be subject to prosecution for trespassing (the same situation was carried out in a couple of situations as well). Bottom line, a store is private property. It can choose to sell to who it wants - try standing outside Costco and claim they are voilating your rights since you are not a member and they won't sell to you and see how far you get.

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??

Unless he's referring to that other thread where you admitted using an unlicensed copy of P5...

Message edited on: 08/19/2004 15:52

Jeff

Renderosity Senior Moderator

Hablo español

Ich spreche Deutsch

Je parle français

Mi parolas Esperanton. Ĉu vi?

Sephyn - take a look at post number 66, first paragraph.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

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.

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

Post 66, first paragraph: "Sephyn, you're obviously not a lawyer. Don't play one on the Internet. You've already admitted in a previous thread that you're using an illegal copy of Poser. Don't make it worse by asserting your right to steal other artists' work."

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=12356&Form.ShowMessage=1883683

Post 66 refers to this link.

It ain't a demo, because the demo doesn't have Don and Judy.

Message edited on: 08/19/2004 16:21

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

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

its a demo. that's my story and i'm stickin to it.<< No, it's not. You said that the previous owner of your computer left it on the computer when he sold it to you. At first I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you were using a P4 demo, but your referenc to Judy and the fact that in your gallery you mention that your stuff is done with Poser5 says otherwise (There is no Poser5 demo). Besides, you can't save images from the demo, and you can't import props or textures (like that brick wall in your gallery image), plus in the demo you're stuck with the Default Guy, it won't let you load the "nude P4 man" which appears in all 3 of your images. So, it's impossible for that to be a demo.

Jeff

Renderosity Senior Moderator

Hablo español

Ich spreche Deutsch

Je parle français

Mi parolas Esperanton. Ĉu vi?

Heh! Is that the sounds of DAZ, COOLER and CURIOUS LABS leaving on a hunting trip??? Keep up your broadcast Sephyn74, I think they are only just down the street! Maybe they will "play back the Tapes" in your trial, and you can then write a book about it from your jail cell!

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.

Oh, so many responses but the original post was simply asking about DAZ banning people from elements of their site. The post merely highlighted the 'relationship' between one individual (me) and a corporate entity (daz). I have a simplistic outlook with regards to copyright - I will never condone any breach of copyright law. However, perceived 'grey' areas are there to be explored which is why, in the first instance I posted a topic generated from above in the copyright forum. How come there is all the recent anger between postees - unsettled past differences perhaps?

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.

Sephyn74 --

A word of friendly advice (and the "friendly" part is sincere):

You aren't doing yourself any favors here -- nor are you endearing yourself to the community at large.

There are those times when the better part of valor -- not to mention wisdom -- is demonstrated by simply walking away from a no-win situation.

In your own best interests, I would strongly suggest that you do this.

Something To Do At 3:00AM

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

Way up there in post 19 Sephyn74? Indeed the comments you posted had value. The type of modification you raise about copyright though, would (in my limited understanding) be a breach of copyright if you did not first obtain permission from the copyright holder of the original item. Even with permission your copyright would only be for the modications. When I say 'you' and 'your' it is a figurative expression. The grey area I have raised elsewhere appertains to a complete destruction of the original item. It's the grey areas that maintain the lifestyle of the legal proffession!

Sephyn, you still don't get it. You DID steal something in your last render. You've got an illegal copy of Poser 5. Therefore, you don't own Don. He is stolen.

That said, I don't think that's what Dean meant when he referred to your last render. He meant that if you proceed as if your warped and incorrect idea of copyright is correct, you'll end up like your last render: "in prison."

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.

Sephyn74, I am passingly familiar with the "fair use" exception in copyright law. I fail to see it having any bearing on your premise that it's legal to take someone elses original work, modify it & then claim the entire work as your own.

So you're claiming that using unlicensed software is "Fair Use"? And this after you've claimed that it's okay to take other people work and alter it slightly and do what you want with it because it's then "yours"? I can't think of ANY circumstances, educational or otherwise, where using unlicensed software would be considered "fair use". bonni

"When a man gives his opinion, he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch." - Bette Davis

Ignornace is bliss ;)

Attached Link: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/

Ignorance is bloody irritating. ;-) bonni

"When a man gives his opinion, he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch." - Bette Davis

You got that right Bonni...and quite annoying >:(

"Whoa, what, now you're trying to say I stole something??"

Then in a later post: "and i did just that, until xoconostle implied that i stole something in my last render..." No, no, not sure how you got that impression. When I wrote that I didn't even know about this mysterious "demo" of P5 you're using, when to my knowledge there is no P5 demo. I thought the smiley would help. I looked at your gallery, saw the most recent render. I took the render to be metaphorical, symbolizing mental prisons, not real ones. What I meant was that it'd be terrible for erroneous ideas about copyright to lead to any sort of anguish, that's all. I was not implying theft, I'm not a mindreader, just a between-the-lines reader. :-) This was just a misunderstanding.

Message edited on: 08/19/2004 21:10

Sephyn74- If you really believe you are right, then you should publicise what you have done (and be SURE to do those things that you claim you have a "right" to do) and then let DAZ and CURIOUS LABS sue you! If you are in fact right, you should EASILY WIN! No-Brainer! I would say, TAKE THEM ALL ON, send them your complete name, address, telephone number and samples of how you have exercised your version of the copyright law and then stick out your tongue and say "Nah-Ya! Nah-Ya!, Can't Touch Me!" I think that would CLEARLY settle everything once and for all, and you would become FAMOUS and maybe even wind up OWNING DAZ and Curious Labs after their legal actions failed! (...Runs For Bomb Shelter)

Egads, Becco_UK must be feeling like someone stole this thread. Or maybe they just lengthened it, added some warts, changed the tune, and claimed it as their own.

Becco, I love the models that you create. I love the art that you produce. I respect you as a person and an artist. Even so, faced with the same situation I would have conducted myself differently at DAZ. However, I do believe that they are treating you very badly there. Perhaps what upsets me most about this whole matter is the way in which people here at Rosity were so fast to attack and condemn you. I wondered if they had even read your story, or just simply glanced at it so that they could move to the next thread.

someone stole this thread.<< No, they didn't steal it, they changed enough of it that it's now legally theirs...

Jeff

Renderosity Senior Moderator

Hablo español

Ich spreche Deutsch

Je parle français

Mi parolas Esperanton. Ĉu vi?

The other thread is not dead. You have publicly claimed and admitted to be using software and models which you did not purchase and to which you have no legal rights. That is warez. We have a zero-tolerance policy on this site. No amount of quoting from copyright law will help unless that citation is pertinant and on point. I have asked Spike (site Admin) to look into this matter. I also wish to thank those people who have been courteous while trying to explain to you why it is wrong to possess and use both the software and the models. It is not just DAZ and CuriousLabs who are hurt, but the makers of all the rest of the software on your fully-loaded machine, and all the good people who have spent the last week trying to help you, without realizing the backstory. Carolly Poser Coordinator

Sephyn said: "... that topic was dropped LAST WEEK. you're beating a dead horse." Hehe obviously you haven't been in the forums for long. Else you'd know that referencing a week old thread is not that uncommon. Heck some 6 months back I remember reading a thread in which a person tried to reference a thread made few years back, but apparently it was archived and no longer available via just browsing the old threads. Don't remember the subject of the issue anymore, but somehow that image of desperately seeking a n-year old thread stuck with me :D

LOL @ martian_manhunter Actually, there is one sense in which it is possible to modify meshes. I can quite legally take a prop by Becco_UK or anyone else and modify the hell out of it for my own use. I can post pictures of the result. I can say that the pictures show my version of Becco's prop, or if it is unrecognizable from the original I can claim (falsely) it's my prop and no-one will be any the wiser. What I CAN'T do is give or sell the modified prop to anyone else.

What I CAN'T do is give or sell the modified prop to anyone else.
...Leading to the "Ignorance is bliss." becoming fully aware. Boy this has been a most interesting topic to read through. Lotsa fun! Even though it's been hijacked twice over and totally deviated from the topic... which was... ummmm... ...ah! Here it is. 80 posts back. Banned from DAZ. I can say that I've not been banned from DAZ, shame about your banning. Ah well. Such is life, time to move on.

Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL

Subject: Anyone else been banned from DAZ Productions?