The "not for commercial use" rule seems to be a grey area, nobody seems to know exactly what the objects creator intended to mean. So, i'm asking you all. If in the read me of a downloaded file it states "not for commercial use" does that make a finished peice of artwork inelligible for sale? What about art shows? How much does the object have to be changed? Anybody who has an opinion or better yet any 3d modelers who know what you intended please contact me by either priv. message, email at spiffyandstuff@hotmail.com, or aol instant messager (spiffyandstuff).

Not for Commercial Use-means just that, the item you downloaded and included in your creation/work cannot be sold, whether as a image, animation or anything. No monies may be generated in anyway, shape or form from the finished work containg the said item.

FastTraxx, can you be a little more specific? ;)

It's pretty obviouse what it means. Commercial refers to the business world. Where people make money. So if you use my objects for your own purposes, and you gain some cash from it(such as slling an animated flick with my clothes in it), and not giving na cut of it then you are breaking the "not for commercial use" rule. If you alter or improve someone elses objects you CANNOT sell them and keepthe money all to yourself. You also cannot sell them unless theoriginal creator agrees. Which they likely would not. Fastraxx said all he needed to. I hope that was a joke about beingspecific(dam thjis keyborad) The space bar don't woork well and some keys don't either. Bosses are cheap bastards.LOL JanP

joking about specific. thats what the ;) means. winky smile face sorry to hit an obvious sore spot JanP creators deserve a cut of profits unless they specify otherwise

I think spiffyandstuff does bring up a legitimate question. I always read the "readme.txt" files to find out what the model's creator has to say, and all of these messages vary widely. Some just "have fun", while others say you can make images, but don't re-sell the model, and frankly a thousand other variations that are in fact GREY. What WOULD be really helpful is someplace on this forum where a basic set of 3 or 4 categories could be drafted up and agreed to by model creators as to "what they intended to mean". A category 1. model might be completely restricted to no commerical use (NCU -like a movie rating) while a category 4. model might be Do Whatever You Like, etc. The creator could put this category in the readme and refer people to Renderosity or wherever for the complete details on what it means. Also, saving that the creator of the model "wants some of the money" is also a vague concept, and some type of basic understanding could also be drafted up to state basically what this means, and how the creator would be paid, etc. You can attack me all you want for suggesting this, but nobody else in the "real world" can operate without some type of guidelines. Especially when each "readme" file, isn't really clear about what the creator expects. Posting such guidelines at a well known public forum, like this one, might be really helpful to all concerned. It doesn't have to be a legal document, just a set of categories that can be referenced by everyone.

No attack here, I think you're on the money! You would have to list the catagories in each readme though, as someone might come here once, download something and then not know where they got it or what the catagories are. I agree with you about the guidelines though. I think if someone created a readme and we all vote on it then give it out as a template it would be great. It would make it easier on all of us. Marque

Sounds like a ok idea, but also keep in mind that not all items are Poser specific, I for example get hits from all over the 3D community, Game sites, Bryce Sites, Rhino sites, 3D Max, Vue, etc etc. While it is a good idea , it could also be very confusing for people outside of this community. Maybe whats needed if for a few well drafted and worded template readme files persons can use and customize to fit their needs. Ken

Sorry wyrwulf, I overlooked the smiley thingy. I'm not sore about any of this at all. I guess a copyright notice should be "stupified" So, rather than just saying "Not for Commercial Use" One should also just say, "Hey can't sell this or include this in any CD package without consent from the original creator and you have to give me a cut of the action JanP

Ok, here's another, what about the "no porn" statement, I've only seen one, but I ask because I posted a blowjob pic to renderotica using Rogue and Micheal, I found Rogue at 3d-cc.com it had no such comments in it's readme, but her creator (hardrider I think) later took offense at this with a posting to 3d commune, (about a month later.) Nothing was ever said to me except what I took to be a half joking comment by hardrider to my original pic. (called, "I wish" for those that wish to view the offending item.) The last time I checked, Rogue still had no such comment in the readme. Though apparently I'm now under watch by Marvel inc. (cue creepy music :) So, what say you great scribes? :) later jb

What if i've already lost the readme file for a few models and i don't remember if the objects possible uses were specified? What if the object isn't the focus? What if the object is changed before use? What if the object is changed in a post render? What if it is just a series of morph targets, can you really regulate morph targets? When it says not for commercial use, is there any real legal meaning or is commercial use just frowned upon? Anyone who doesn't believe it to be a grey area hasn't properly analized the situation. How can someone say "not for commercial use" when the object is posted on a free download site, your giving out for use. In fact, it seems that to post it on a free download site you are forfeiting all legal rights if there's no copyright. I never thought this subget would generate so much stir. Anyone with an opinion please respond.

Well, at risk of sounding pompous, I guess it works like this, in civil suits, you, "the guilty party" have to prove that, "the angelic creator" is in the wrong, and you have to be able to pay to prove it, since the creators will be the one's getting the damages claimed against you, and you have to stomach the legal fees. This is how the Scientologists do it, they simply sue the little guy, knowing full well that they can't afford to prove them wrong. It sucks, but we have a legal system, not a "justice" system. I think you'll find that "the law" says that ignorance is no defense, "my dog ate the readme file..." tough! I'm not a lawyer, ("but I use brand X, Mmmm, tastes good!" :) but I think you'll find that the applicable law is "fair use" part of the copyright law. Copyright is a fairly informal law, it says that all you have to do is prove you, wrote/built/published the said item for copyright to subsist on that item, at which point if you sell it, then it's against the law for others to use it without paying. You get to use parts, (but not all) of it for personal use only, but if you use any of it comercially, you have to pay. Think karaoke, then think "sampling" or "covering" records. Something can be public domain, but still copyright, think the GPL, the GNU Public License, (commonly known as "copyleft") which says you can do what the hell you want with the code, feed it to grandma, burn it as part of some wierd satanic ritual, use it as a frisbee, or even (shock horror!) create programs with it. What you can't do is sell it without the "owners" permission, and if you change it, it must be made available like the rest of it. Nothings says you can't "embrace and extend"/"innovate" (Copyright Bill Gates, AKA "the devil" :) but the part that the copyright subsists on, belongs to you and you can use lawyers with impunity. So mote it be! Linux, (our last best hope against the "evil empire" tm :) is protected by the GPL, if you stick it on a bit of code, (any bit of code) then you (and it) are covered, it's a legal document. I'd suggest that anyone really interested in such things points thier browser at www.gnu.org where it's explained in detail and available for free. Like the man says, "think freedom of speech, not free beer!" :) What's to stop you from not tipping your hat to the man who's model your using, the fear of what might happen if you don't. later jb

Regardless if its on a "free download site" or not, The creator does not lose or forfeit any rights. He/She does take the risks of having them abused by people who dont give a crap about anyone's rights besides themselves. Its as simple as this-Not everyone wants you to make money off their labor and never see anything of it themselves. They took the time to make the object, and were nice enough to share it with the community, the least you could do is respect their wishes by not making money off their labors. As for Marvel keeping a eye on anyone here, I seriously doubt that, They are having enough trouble of their own trying to keep from going bankrupt(again). Im not sure about the legalities concerning morph targets-since those are actually modified portions of a mesh created by someone else(usually Zygote). As to the Calvin Klien instance, technically they could charge someone for including their recognizable brand-that get's into a whole different area called intellectual rights. Coca-Cola paid $1 million dollars to have their Coke logo appear on the Jumbotron in the Superman movies, Marlboro(Philip Morris) paid close to the same amount to have one of their trucks get mauled in the same movie., What it boils down to, is if you didnt make it, you dont have anyrights to it, other than what the creator will allow, if they dont want it used in any money making venture, then don't include it in your work. Most of the guys(gals) around here are usually pretty easy going about this, some are not, this is a fact of life, all we can do is respect their wishes, if we dont then dont be surprised if they just up and stop providing stuff for the community to use for free, or they publicly chastise you for going against their wishes. The first step in making sure people respect your rights, is to respect theirs concerning their creations. Ken

When I post morphs and other stuff, the terms I put forth are as follows: You may not redistribute this [product] commercially. That means, you may not make profit redistributing it on a CD or charging for download from a site. I think it's asinine to make something, put it up for download, and then tell people they have to get permission to use renders in commercial purposes. Either you understand people are going to use it or you don't. If I'm doing an album cover for a band and it features a render of a scene with a handful of sci-fi props, the builders of those props cannot claim damages, because I'm not digging into their potential income. If I burn a CD with the source prop files on it and sell it, that's completely different. Part of the spirit of the copyright law is the implicit understanding that depictions are usually not reverse engineerable into the original objects. You can download my Nyla African-American head morph, use it in a scene, and sell signed lithographs of the scene for all I care. What you haven't done is provide a potential "thief" the necessary data to make a perfect copy. Take fonts for example. The courts have ruled that font foundries may sue for using copyrighted names, and if someone copies their font metrics (or translates between TrueType and PostScript) it's a theft (this happened about six years back). However, they ruled that the printed glyphs themselves were not copyrightable. No one can own the concept behind a particular shape for the letter 'f'. If I develop a lookalike font and give it a similar name, there isn't squat Adobe, Bitstream, etc. can do to me. Conversely, if I use their licensed fonts in a professional production, I am not obligated to give credit. What we upload here are design elements, which are used in artworks and whose images are not in the same category as registered trademarks. Zygote and other vendors do not expect any kind of credit or licensing for the use of their products, and would have a hard time in court explaining how they could only expect private use of a $350 model mesh. Because of this, they vigorously defend the theft of those meshes themselves. Again, I humbly ask you to ask yourselves: if you believe yourself to be the final arbiter of a prop's use, why are you uploading it here? Do you really believe a render of your prop is equivalent to the prop's .OBJ file?

I think the big fear is someone creates a model which is the used as the main item in a big ad campaign and the creator gets $100,000 now the model maker would be pretty pissed if he said use in anyway you see fit LOL.......ok a not likely scenario but you see my point. the best option if you intend using an item is to mail the maker and ask them, the few times i've had to do this they have said "sure go ahead" most just want to know what there getting used for rather than a wad of cash, on a personal note my answer is always "yes feel free can i look at the end product" or "yes feel free the fact that you own a PW cd gives you comercial rights to all mine and Rena's items free or for sale (check with any contributed parts though)".....Steve PS forgive the non intentional plug :o)

Ken: Coke paying a million dollars for a product placement is a service fee. It has nothing to do with copyright. If I made a racist movie about killing blacks where the protagonists were swilling Cokes left and right, the company could sue for unfairly associating their product with the movie's message and potentially bringing a boycott of the product -- in other words, clearly definable damages. Or they could sue simply because I was duping viewers into thinking I had a product placement and Coke was OK with my message, defamation of their corporate image. As for Morph Targets, if they've been squished all you have is a data file containing a nebulous (literally) cloud of points with no description of their relationship to one another. No possible way of reconstructing the head's mesh. Period. I would also humbly point out that most of us have invested at least half a grand into our 'hobby,' a pursuit with clear commercial potential. While that is no justification for theft, it's unreasonable to expect and entice us to download high quality freebies and then have no use of them outside of this forum and a few personal web pages.

Serious? I should hope not :) Anything I've ever put up, people can take, I don't care, but that's not the point, the point is, "the law says..." If you do care, then add a legal license to your stuff, then its up to you to prosecute, since copyright is a civil statute. If you do prosecute you'll likely win, and the loser gets crucified by the system, they get a criminal record for "free" but they have to pay both sides legal costs. In most "punitive" actions it's the legal costs that do the real damage. This is the law, lawyers make a lot of money out if it. They started making even more money when they decided to do the "no win, no charge" deal, hence the glorious legal money spinner that is personal injury law. The choice is yours, if you want to be able to protect your stuff, use the GPL, it's simple, effecive, and more importantly, proven in court. If somebody pisses you off, you sue them, they can't afford to pay, you win, pull back, run titles, fade out. If you don't care, don't license it and don't complain. The question here is more whether people see themselves as "lawyers at dawn" people or not, because once you sic the law on somebody's ass it won't stop untill it's done, and the consequences for the loser of a civil suit are always of a "permanent" nature. We are no longer children, and if we don't "play nice with others" then the law has a habit of rendering summary and final judgement. later jb

Duane, You do have a point there, although with Coke paying a service fee, its still to have their Trademarked intellectual properties included(its the same, but its also different). As for morph targets, like I said, I really dont know the legalities of them, I myself would think the same as you about them-I just dont know the gest of it concerning them. I myself dont mind my items being used commercially, as my read me file clearly states, make a million dollars off it, I dont care. All I ever ask is to not redistribute the files(objects)in any form or media other than images/videos/print/etc. Except for some of the comic characters-which cant be used commercially without permission from Marvel/Polygram/LucasFilm/etc.

I don't agree Tecn0mage, if you had a client wanting an image created and you knew the perfect model was available for free, now lets say it was a complex model that took 20 hours to create thats 20 hours the guy/gal saved you, or if you couldn't model its a big wad of cash you or the client saved so why not bung a bit the modelers way........the way it works is some folks model some folks render (some lucky gits do both LOL) we work together, I have clients that get to know costings so a company says "can you do this" ...they go away and think we want $XX for the image Steve will want $XX for the modeling we'll charge the company XX+XX......if your gonna work proffesionally you gotta play by the rules are you'll end up getting caught out eventually......Steve

ps. maybe the coke/marlboro comment should have not been included in the previous post-Im still half awake so please just ignore that comment completly :)

I agree Tecn0mage and it sucks, insurance costs here in the uk will rocket with the adverts on tv for lawyers wanting to sue for accidents..........but thats not the point, infact this is a pointless argument anyway coz if the readme says no comercial use you gotta ask the creator anyway, its black and white, no argument, you can't get out of it :o)...Steve

I agree with you there Techn0, I really dont see a point in posting an item for use and not being allowed to use it. For example, awhile back someone had posted a Lady Death figure and their readme says you cant use this in any image without my permission first. Thats just insane, why post it if you cant use it even in a image. The guy (if I remember right) got really bent over people posting images with his figure(which was a rendition of a property owned by Choas! Comics)

And moreover, the very first gallery posting I did here was of actress Jill Hennessy...which was built off of that Lady Death figure. Not much resemblance, would you say.

but it is cut and dry thats my point.....my way of looking at it is unless the read me file says "yes you can use it any way" then i need to ask permission, the next step is is it worth it in cost and man hours to make it myself or should i ask what it will cost to use it.......as for the lady death scenario that was just silly........Steve

my way of thinking is if a guy makes a comic and sells it for $1 and uses one of my dresses i'm not going to sue him i'll just ask for a comic so i can show friends and say look i'm famous LOL....but if i dloaded a hair model and used it in a preview image for one of my CD's the maker might sue me and i want my arse covered LOL.......Steve

Again, these suits (at least in the States, I don't know what you do in countries whose laws remember the Middle Ages) are based off the concept of damages, not permissions. Selling blackmarket Simpsons T-shirts is clear damage. Making free bootlegs of Star Trek bloopers is still damage because Paramount could conceivably sell those in a compilation tape. Neither of these cases is hypothetical. Using a prop in a render is not the same as giving the prop away. Period. The maker of the prop would have to demonstrate that there was a profit potential in releasing images of the prop that you were cutting into. And the moment they try that, the question of why they put the prop in a usable domain (e.g. sales) comes into play. Can't have it both ways. Just because something is in a set of terms given with a file does not make terms legal. Any contract, like a will, is contestable, and the more absurd the terms the less likely they'll stand up.

Based upon what has already been established as a general practise, Zygote, the "master modelmaker" sells their models without any further binding requests for "some of the money" should it be used in a commercial rendering. This also seems to be the practise at the Poser stores- purchasers get to use the models in commercial renders without any other fees. Just DON'T sell or re-distribute the original meshes or textures. So it would seem fair and logical that anyone posting a model as "Free Stuff" is making a statement that it is free. When Zygote does this, it still states NO selling or re-distribution, etc. This seems to be the prevailing practice. So if a modelmaker wants "some money", a fee for commercial use should be stated in the readme file- like $15-$25 since this seems to be the general price range (more or less) This gives any commercial renderer the option of paying a known fee and avoiding any futher legal hassle, rather than a totally unknown amount. It is very unlikely that a model will show up in a major Hollywood production anyway. I doubt that Pixar would be downloading Poser models for their next animated film. Most renderers are not making big money from Poser model renders, and those that might be are probably doing extensive Photoshop post-production on them to the point that they would be hard to identify anyway.

With what you just said "The maker of the prop would have to demonstrate that there was a profit potential in releasing images of the prop that you were cutting into." If the license agreement said not for commercial use, and you use it anyway in a image that was for sale, then there is your proof of profit potential. If the creator states its not to be used commercially, then dont, there is no if, ands, or buts about it. becuase its posted freely for use non commercialy, doesnt mean the creator loses or gives up any rights for it. It means its not to be used in images, animations, etc for profit. its pretty cut and dry. Im not pointing this directly at you Duane, so please dont take it that way, I was just using your comment to stress a point. If it says no commercial use, there shouldnt be any questions about it.

we could debate this forever and we all have valid points, but personally i'm gonna make sure i have my ass covered just incase :o).........Steve

BTW, as far as commercial use of base Poser models is concerned, I'm reasonably convinced Ananova.com's virtual newscaster is Posette with a (very few) morphs, or at least the mesh Zygote designed for her (which they admit to selling other places). Zygote's not seeing a dime off it, or even receiving admission from Digital Animations in Glasgow that they're using it (other people here say the animations are done in LightWave).

Well if Zygote built it then you can bet they got paid to build it Or it was taken from Poser Whioch I doubt. A model gets only a one time fee. I mean like I need a model so I pay you to build it. From there I can use it in anything I want however many times I wish. Because hile you built it. I bought it and now own it. But I can never say I created it. BTW the skins that come with Media Player 7 are zygote Poser Dork and Posette. Don't forget that Zygote use to, if not now make models for all types of programs. I.E. 3ds Poser figures are merely Poserfied Zygote models. At least up to Michael but I'd expect micheal will be available from them for whatever

Hi, I understand the "profit" thing, which is why I suggested the GPL, this is a "license" which by it's terms says that "use of" the thing licensed means you agree to it. Of course it's contestable, but are you willing to pay to contest it? The thing with a license like the GPL isn't profit, it was designed to protect the rights of people who freely give away thier work, (again, "free speech, not free beer") but wish to retain control over how it is used. Because of this, the issue becomes, "did you break the license aggrement" not, "did you profit from it", this is a lot easier to prove, and since it's a civil matter, if you lose, you pay costs. It's designed to be used against big companies, who have the money and do profit from shit like this, hence damages are in order, etc. But the law applies equally to individuals too, it doesn't matter if you can't pay costs. You'll have to declare bankrupcy, and you have a court judgement against your name, which screws your credit rating, (even if bankrupcy doesn't) I'm not saying it's right, but it is legal. Everyone saying otherwise isn't going to change that. It doesn't matter if you think it's stupid, if you get slammed with a lawsuit can you afford the time and money to fight? Can you afford to lose? It's legal blackmail... But! It's very easy to do, and very difficult, time consuming and expensive to undo, all you have to do is include the GPL with your file, along with the readme or in place of it. Either way, you then have the option to sue. Everone thinks it a joke untill the summons arrives... Trust me on this one, it wouldn't be so widely used if it hadn't passed through several lawyers already, it was intended to stop software companies making a profit on work that wasn't thiers, and to preseve an ideal that hackers of the world are very serious about preserving, creative freedom. the ability to make something for your fellow hacker (artist) and give it away free, but to retain control over how it is used. If you went to court over the GPL, you could bet that GNU would fund you, because if the GPL fails, the myriad hackers that depend on it have no protection. This is not a game! The issue still remains one of would you sue, not if... For the defendant it becomes an issue of if you can afford to lose or not, not whether you think you're right or wrong, that part is accademic once the legal jugenaut starts rolling, at that point the cost of losing escaltes out of all proportion to the "crime" committed. This is the way the legal system works, somebody must lose. later jb

My personal opinion: Most of the modellers had many hours to create some pieces, in most of the cases they feel good their pieces where used in images. They give their creations for free while having fun to model it, they don't want to make money and also don't want that others make money without of recognice of that. It's not the point that the modeller want some of the money, he wants to know that someone makes money with his pieces (Feedback). If you save time because you can donload things for free, why not use a little bit of this saved time for asking about permission. I personally had never received a "no" when asking for redistribution, conversion of pieces with some of my characters. All the times the original creator had given me the OK and a thanks while asking first. And thats the same i do, i had and would never say "no" because i feel good if someone use my creations. SHARKEY

Mostly in reply to post #10- Here's what I use. I hope it avoids any ambiguity. You guys can all tell what this means right? Liscense Info: You can use it in any kind of rendered artwork for fun or profit but do not sell or redistribute the texture maps or CR2 files. If your computer explodes it's not my fault. I don't want people to resell my products but I also don't want them worrying that I'm going to get mad if they make whatever kind of images. I am not the thought police and I can't imagine doing that.

"Your work is to keep cranking the flywheel that turns the gears that spin the belt in the engine of belief that keeps you and your desk in midair."

Annie Dillard

I have read several mentions of the GPL here. The GPL DOES allow EVERYONE to sell stuff put under GPL, they just force him to tell everybody he sell itz that he has the same Right too. If someone here puts his stuff under GPL, any kind of commercial gain is allowed. The GPL just states that everyone can give copyleft stuff away for free or for money. So the GPL dos not help you at all to protect your work, it just guarantees that your work and any other work which is based on you work, can be given away for free OR for money by EVERYONE. So few people here would use the GPL.

A ship in port is safe; but that is not what ships are built for.
Sail out to sea and do new things.
-"Amazing Grace" Hopper

Avatar image of me done by Chidori. 

Attached Link: http://spiffyandstuff.homestead.com/main.html

Well, this is where i see some arguments going and i must disagree. When a model maker (like zygote) creates an model and distributes it with any fee, including no fee, (zero is a number too) they give up all post render rights. Though they do have legal rights concerning redistribution of the file. I think everyone has gotten away from the real question. It's not about who can sue who. The question is whether a render of the object is allowed to be controled. I say no. The .obj's author certainly has say in the file, but does it make sense that they have any post render rights. When you render it it is no longer an .obj or code but your artwork, an image you created. The product is put into distribution (free or otherwise), when i render it, it becomes my property. If i'm not mistaken the law says its not plagerism or a copyright infringment if whats in question is changed %50. Now, is the combonation of I's an O's changed by atleast %50 when it is rendered in an image. Nuts, now this question is on the second page, fewer people are going to see it, oh well. As always please respond!

Reality Check, Unless you file for a formal copyright and or trademark, legally then you are open to the abuse of any public domain material. You must file before releasing it to the public domain. Just slapping a commercial use statement on it or text stateing copyright does not make it so. It is better than nothing but any lawyer worth anything will shoot you full of holes. I have had to deal with these issues many times for professionally produced corporate products, logos, and other materials bothe audio and visual. Once it is out in the public domain and you do not have legal filings, you are on your own.

This has been my point all along. Artworks have composition. .OBJ files do not: they are abstractions with no 'instances' (to crib from programmers) of their own. Spending 72 hours on a figure's mesh won't make it an artwork (not until it's rendered). Commercial artists don't have difficulty understanding that. In the final analysis, Zygote and the people who contribute to Freestuff (myself included) make stencils, not artworks. Period. You may copyright them, but you can't set terms on their usage. We can spend another twenty posts dancing between the putative legalities of readme.txt files and being considerate of makers' wishes, but we should move on. I respect the point that people who feel their products are being misused may decide not to contribute any more, but it's time we woke up and recognized what's likely to happen and what isn't. If someone uses my Nyla morph to make a render of a stereotype African-American trying to buy cigarettes with food stamps, I have every right to be offended but it stops there. Meshes and textures are the intellectual property of their makers only as meshes and textures. Renders are the intellectual property of the renderers, not the meshmakers or even the texmappers. When General Motors can demand royalties from a published photo of a street scene that includes one of their cars, get back to me.

well said, i like it, i've been in ageement since the first post in that opinion.

well i might try to take that last post more seriously...... but come on, look at the grammar. SOP> apparently you didn't read the whole post, many people would agree that the rendering of the object is not incuded in the terms of use. The .obj is not being redistributed an image is! The author of the .obj is not the same as the artist who created a .jpg! I'm only picking on you because the poor word choice, people should really try to stay away from using languge made up by lazy internet junkies. Keep it in the chat room!

Based on the 15th post on this page in which fonts were an example it seems the courts would rule in favor of the artist who used an object not there own. Based on the information duanemoody provided it seems the render is not a copy of the initial file and therefore a rendered picture can be used anyway the artist sees fit. And it makes sense if you parrallel the two situations. Microsoft Word can be parralleled to poser, a .obj to a .ttf, and a written article to a render. If i use use a font downloaded of the internet that is not intended to be for commercial use and write something using that font that makes me thousands of dollars, the creator of the font still doesn't get anything. Same goes for a render assuming duanemoody's information is correct. A private citizen can say, "you can't do that" all they please, but the courts have apparently already or obviously would, rule in favor of no post render rights. So i think the argument for post render rights is over. Rendered its mine, as a file its yours.... Anyone disagree? >:( On a side note: these forums are fun, debates are fun!

But then Goecities has paid the fees and filed the copyrights and trademarks with the appropriate legal authorities. Just pasting the words is not enough. Do not mislead anyone here. If you put something out there and you do not file with the proper agency. Then you have very little to stand on. I am not going to start pasting copyright and trademark laws on this board as it is not the venu. You can jump up and down yell and scream all you wish. You cannot file for damages if you do not register legally first!

I disagree very strongly.......lets create a scenario...say a modeler makes a model of a car and takes 50 hours then gives it for free..then you get a client wants a render of a hot babe leaning over a car and will pay you $3000, you use the model car take the cash and give the modeler nothing????????????....can you honestly say that that is fair...tell you what if this ever starts happening you'll see a drying up of free stuff very quick......i am totally shocked at the selfish grabbing attitude of some of the folks here..Steve

Furthermore If you claim copyright to a creation, You are by law obligated to sent copies to the Library of Congress within 3 months. Failure to do so makes you liable to be fined by the US government. No one here is saying that you have no protection but unless you register, file and fullfill your obligations then you leave you creations open to unlimited use. Just attaching a statement is not enough!! The company I work for, everything goes through legal there are very specific rules as to what gets published, how it is published and nothing goes out on the public domain before being approved by legal. They make sure the companies rights are protected. We have lawyers on staff who's only job is to make sure that the companies rights are legally filed and protected. For the individual It does not cost alot, All it takes is a couple of bucks and some time and paperwork. So if you think your stuff is worth protection make the investment. If not or you don't, well as I said before you will not be standing on both legs. The mandatory filing copies to the Library of Congress should be taken note by all the artists on this site that attach a copyright notice to their images.

not if you live in the UK :o)......Steve

It's now better for staying out of this discussion, because i fell like an idiot. It's fun to model things and give it away for free, but after reading such disscussions i had to tell myself for what. Am i a idiot while giving everything for free, seems sometimes yes. LONG LIVES CAPITALISM. SHARKEY

Don't give up Robert, I had a "why bother" pang just earlyer but then i thought back about all the nice folks who have asked and it makes it all worth while again :o)....Steve

ok, this thread has stayed nice and polite for a good 47 messages. Just becuase someone doesnt have proper grammer, or doesnt use proper grammer is no reason to discredit someone. And what SOP siad is correct, If you download a item-whether its free or not and it includes terms of use with it. Then those are your terms of use, you either agree to them and abide by the creators wishes, or delete the file and dont use it at all. Becuase by ignoring the said terms you become liable for damages(not that any of us have the time or resources to pursue actions legally or would truly want to go that route)but you do become liable, and are subject to some form of repercussins from the creator. And according to coyright law, whether or not you have filed, once a item is created, it is automatically protected by copyright law, filing is only good for speeding up legal procedures. the following is taken directly from Circular 1-Copyright Basics provided by the US Copyright office: Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States(title 17, U.S. Code) tp the aithors pf "original works of authorship" including literay, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Sectiopn 106 of the Copyroght Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following: To reproduce the copyrighted work in copies. To prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work. To distribute copies of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. To display the copyrighted work publicly, in the case of pictoral, graphic, or sculptural works, including motion picture or other audiovisual work. It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by the Act to the owner of copyright. Copyright protection susists from the time the work is created in a fixed form:that is, it is an incident of the process of authorship. The copyright in the work of authorship immediatly becomes the property of the author who created it.

Lets put everything in perspective. I only make these remarks for your own protection. People put alot of their heart and soul into creations and then because the want to share they pop it out on the internet. Now that is great! Most of us really don't care if our stuff is used and usually are thrilled when it is. At most we would only want our name mentioned. But if you take your stuff more seriously and you do it not with the exclusive purpose of just increasing the creative treasury. Then take a little time and go the extra bit to insure that some big multi-million dollar company does not take advantage of you. Lets us also be realistic. A professional commercial corporation will not use your stuff. I'll tell you why. If it is on the public domain they cannot prove that you were actually the origionator. Who's to say you did not get it from somewhere else? They cannot afford to take such a risk. Their lawyers would not let them take that risk. It is far more preferable to commission a artist to create the material under contract for them. Or they will purchase it from a reputable stock supply house. This way they have undisputable rights to the material. The process that corporations use should give you a clue to how important it is to take the steps to protect your stuff if you have any other than a hobbiests interest in your work. I just wanted let everyone know as far as the law was concerned where they stand. Finally the finished work of art is the property of the artist. with the exception of images of live people. The owner of an object cannot lay claim to any pictures or paintings of the object. You can rent the object to some one to make a painting or take a photograph of it but that only applies to the object not to the image of the object. When a motion picture is made you need to get a release from any living person that is in the frame, to get the permission to distribute that persons image. But the cars and buildings and locations and props, are rented and the owner of the props only gets paid for their use. The owner of the props does not have any rights to the movie it's self. The same applies to electronic objects as well.

Part 2: page 8 concerning registration. In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though registration is not generally a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to to make registration. Among these advantages are the following: Registration estalishes a public record of the copyright claim; Before an infringment suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of the U.S. origin. If registration is made within 3 months after publication of the work or prior to an infringment of the work, statutory damages and attorney's fees will be available to the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and profits is available to the copyright owner. Registration may be made at any time within the life of the copyright.(Authors life span plus 50 years)

As far as the U.S. is concerned posts #56 and #58 information was taken directly from the Library of Congress Copyright office's Copyright Basics(Circular #1) which is available for free from their offices. after qouting theses facts-please refer to post #2 Ken

MANDATORY DEPOSIT FOR WORKS PUBLISHED IN THE UNITED STATES Although a copyright registration is not required, the Copyright Act establishes a mandatory deposit requirement for works published in the United States. See the definition of "publication." In general, the owner of copyright or the owner of the exclusive right of publication in the work has a legal obligation to deposit in the Copyright Office, within 3 months of publication in the United States, two copies (or in the case of sound recordings, two phonorecords) for the use of the Library of Congress. Failure to make the deposit can result in fines and other penalties but does not affect copyright protection.

SOP is correct according to my understanding. My sister went to law school and that's what she told me about it. Frankly no one can afford to sue over the amounts of money you'd be talking about anyway. Also what's legal and what's right are two different questions. I think the makers wishes should always be respected but try to keep the wishes reasonable too.

"Your work is to keep cranking the flywheel that turns the gears that spin the belt in the engine of belief that keeps you and your desk in midair."

Annie Dillard

How about this: Play nice? 1) Respect the creator's wishes. 2) If you're not sure, e-mail the creator and ask. Personally, I think that the creator owns the model while you own the final image. If you make money off of the model with the rendering, you might want to consider repaying that creator in some way (if feasible.) Not because you are obliged to, but because you ought to. HandSpanStudios nailed it on the head.

SOP> Your job requires you to talk like some uneducated derelict, right. I doubt you make a lot of money, and if you do, i'm sure i'll dwarf your figures soon after i get out of college if not before graduation entirely. Anyhow, i'm curious as to your occupation.

SOP > Thank you for using plain english. My mother language is german and i have trouble to understand your every-day speak. To all: I would see it at least as being impolite to use a "non-commercial" prop in a "commercial" render without asking for an okay. But since we discuss legal status... If i would render a commercial picture with an non-commercial prop, which law would be applicable? German or ammerican law? If you would try to fry me on an american court how would you enforce it? If you plan to bring the case for a german court, how much would you pay for that? Ist it Practcable? What if I'm not in Germany, but in Spain (as far as I know they have a lousy copyright law there), or in Russia? I think every artist has the right to state the do's and don't's for his freestuff. If you can't live with that, then remember that noone likes spoilsports. ( Spielverderber? ) But calling the judges will not help in many cases. Just my two cents. I plan to put things into free stuff as soon as my works are goon enough for that. I think I will add a GPL type licence for them, but I have no problems with the "no commecial use" stuff. Uwe Schmidt

A ship in port is safe; but that is not what ships are built for.
Sail out to sea and do new things.
-"Amazing Grace" Hopper

Avatar image of me done by Chidori. 

good enough, not goon enough > Typo. Uwe

A ship in port is safe; but that is not what ships are built for.
Sail out to sea and do new things.
-"Amazing Grace" Hopper

Avatar image of me done by Chidori. 

A pro fighter..... hahahaha, i was right, you are an uneducated derelict! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I will try and brind a simple and less "legal" approach to this very long post. First of all...I find the answer rather simple. If someone says in their ReadMe file...that they don't want anyone to use it for comercial use (for profit)...then DON'T. Yes...perhaps that the creator is not 100% legally covered with a "Readme" file...but god damn it people...the guy is giving up his work for free...the least we can do is live by his wishes. Let's leave the courts out of this and use good judgement. And to spiffyandstuff...you said earlier that...what if the object in question is 50% changed...or modified...or whatever. It still remains the creators object. And most of all...if the object is so changed...why the hell use that object in the first place. Create one yourself. I have a simple solution to make the "Grey area" go away spiffyandstuff. If you are planing to sell artwork...sell artwork that only contains your own stuff...or stuff that has been bought for real without any strings attached. If a person says in the readme file...that they don't want you to use it for comercial use...then don't. Its the least you can do for all the great people giving us free stuff. I can't believe that people actually have to ask this question. Its like..."ohh well...It says I cant use it...but maybe legally I could still use it without trouble" Its a question of respecting the creators wishes...what is so damn hard to understand. If the guy/girl says "Non-comercial"...then DUH!!! Sorry if this sounds like a rude post...but I cant believe that I'm the 69th post here...and no one really seems to give any importance to the wishes of the author. Solo22

I don't care about what the law says, I've got lots of problems with anyone claiming any kinds of rights over a render made with their object, texture map, pose or whatever. As Steveshanks said, in a better world we would ask (and I have been asked, which I thought was very nice), but I never feel less than honored whenever I see a render that uses anthing I've made, either free or what I sell. And if PFO whats to include a boilerplate read-me on their freestuff to the effect of "not for commercial use" (and they are, incidently), that's O.K., because I only go over there once in awhile to see how weird they still are (and they never fail to impress me with their weirdness!), I would never download anything from there.

First, What's the pfo? Second, the questions is whether or not the modeler has the right to tell an artist what they can and cannot do with something that they give away for free. There's no specified agreement on any rules. When they GIVE it away they also GIVE up rights to it. Why do they have the right to tell someone what they can and cannot do with it. THEY GAVE IT AWAY! It was GIVEN to soemone else. why do they have the right to control it after they GAVE it away. I can't believe people think they have rights to something they GAVE away. I need something to do, i'm running low on ideas. Don't take offense to what i say, i'm just looking for soem conflict, it's fun. I don't know about anyone else but when i post a mean nasty comment i probably don't mean it, i'm just looking for a reaction, after i can't wait to see how people respond. In all reality i would propbably like most of you considering we share a strong common interest. And just so everyone knows, i don't use other people's objects at all if they are not for commercial use. I just thought it should be discussed. Don't forget to tell me what this pfo is, thanks

PFO? Sad that you do not know of the this, however, we should not all assume that everyone must know that PFO stands for Poser Forum Online. spiffyandstuff, may I have a word with you here please? Seems to be no remorse in what you say whatsover, as if all this freestuff you gather should be yours to do with as you please because it is FREE! Tough bananas on all these artists and creators that labored so very hard to bring these items to you. Why should you respect their wishes, they are all just idiots for giving away all that stuff to you for free, so why not take advantage of their good simaritan ways!! I do not like the tone of this you say whatsover. It stinks big time. I started working on a comic months ago. I went out of my way to go through four gigs of zip files that I thought I may use at some time trying desperatly to contact everyone I could to ASK them if it would be okay for me to use their items and characters for my project. This took me longer than any one rendering I ever did for the comic. But I felt it had to be done because I would have felt like shit if I had just started assuming it was okay and went ahead, even with the ones that had nothing stipulating anything in them. It took me a looong time but I did eventually find MOST of the authors, and those that I did not I still attempted to find through others. I admit that there are some that just were so elusive, whether because they no longer existed or perhaps no one actually knew where the file came from, but I know I tried. One by one I contacted everyone to let them know about what I wished to do. I also made them aware that it may eventually be a commercial thing, and that I would do my best to give credit where credit is due. It was to my own surprise that EVERYONE was so very generous and did indeed allow me the graciousness of letting me use there craetions for my project. You cannot fathom the good feeling this gave me. What also surprised me was that a few were actually touched that I would even go out of my way to ask them so eloquently, but WHY NOT!!!?? Some even asked me why the heck I was even asking? Kinda floored me! They work so hard on this stuff, one really should NOT assume it's for us to just do whatever with. Heck, sure, I could have just gone ahead, as you say, and used whatever and saved myself a lot of time and effort. But I tell you this much spiffyandstuff, I am sooo GLAD that I did what I did because that feeling of joy that overwhelmed me to have so much support from so many, a lot of whom I actually did not even know, when they all gave me that permission I asked for, it was like such a wonderful feeling, I cannot even describe it to you. All I know is that it sure is sweet not having to feel any guilt about using props and characters from others on a project knowing full well that they know I am using them. It uplifts a great burden. The only thing I concern myself with now is that I hope like hell I am able to make all these wonderful folks proud of their work through my art, because I believe that is the main reason they create all this stuff most of the time, because they would like to see their hard work displayed as best and as beautifully as possible, and yes, they would all like to be recognized for their efforts. What the hell is wrong with that now, hmmm!? They made the stuff, and just like we work hard as hell to create the artwork, they toiled hard to create that which we labor with to make our masterpieces. The least you can do is show all these people, these artists and creators the courtesy of trying to ASK them if what you do with their things is okay? It is just the polite thing to do. You will find that most, if not all, are willing to go out of their way to actually help you if you show them the recognition they too deserve for their hard work!!! Please do this for what is right, because that is just what it is, "right". To just go ahead and USE this stuff to your hearts content without any respect for the authors wishes is just blatantly ignorant and also quite lazy on your part and will cause nothing but trouble for the community as a whole. If all the wonderful people that bring all this freestuff to us STOP bringing it to us because of attitudes such as yours YOU too will suffer, along with all the rest of the 3D Community, and I wonder if perhaps then you may feel just a little more hindsite as to what you just stated above, and wished you had not.

{When they GIVE it away they also GIVE up rights to it.} Not always true - when you release something, you have the right, legally (I think; I'm not a lawyer), to restrict it's use, whether you give it up freely or sell it. And some sales licenses also restrict commercial use (or even include a graduated scale based on intended use)... Usually there is a contract of some form involved - that contract can be a general statement (like the PFO has been developing, and the 3D Commune has also briefly discussed) that lists basic usage rights, or it can be a detailed document, like the licensing agreement that comes with, say, Poser 4... By downloading the item, you have implicitly accepted the terms of that contract, whatever it may be.

I just started 3d artwork not more than a year ago and i've only been a member of renderosity for about two weeks. Is it that surprising that i didn't know what pfo stood for? My attitude is not a problem i'm just arguing points. Like i earlier stated, i don't use non-commercial use objects, and if i find myself often using an object i do contact the modeler and thank them. If everybody had my attitude there wouldn't be non-commercial use objects. As soon as i get the chance to upload models, i will and for free without restrictions. I'm not a bad guy.

Uhhh, hopefully you have learned since the day of uploading your models how to compress your files. Not like the filesizes of your images. Maybee more would see them, because they're good, but more then 300 and 500Megs is too much to wait. Have a look on the net for "Garage", theirs a tool which compress your images automatically. And i'm really happy you didn't use non-commercial objects (for the moment). Hahahaha The 2 cents of one of this idiots. SHARKEY

I don't follow what your saying?

He means your picture renderings are too rich, too intense, too big for the average user to view because they take far too long to load through a modem; which means you should try to lean them up more in an application such as Photoshop or Photopaint or as Sharkey suggests, "Garage". spiffyandstuff, you may find a LOT of folks here haven't been doing 3D stuff forever, fact is a lot of folks are new, and really, the forums haven't been around for an eternity. Just seems like one when one thinks of all the hoots and howls the forums have been through in their short life span. A shame really, but what can ya do. As for your attitude, you do have one, otherwise you wouldn't be argueing this common sense point in the first place and realize other artists and creators have feelings and need to be respected for their work without you bringing up such less than polite and far from acceptable remarks.

As for my attitude, if i really didn't care about the non commercial use message, i wouldn't have started this thread. When I initiated the question it wasn't because i wanted to argue. It was because the non commercial use message seemed like a grey area, i was right. We're approaching 100 reply's and still no correct, cut and dry answer. And as i stated, i do not use non commercial use objects at all. At first, i didn't plan to use other people's objects at all, but i soon found that on my budget it is nearly immpossible to produce any good quality poser work without them. I'm not using the "no post render rights" argument so i can justify using these objects either. I will never use other poeple's objects if they don't want them used. The fact is, however, it is not a cut and dry case (legally or ethically). I'm just trying to balance the argument because it seems to be going in one direction. I could just as easily argue the other side. If the "no post render rights" side started winning i might very well argue the opposite side under a different log in. I do feel, however, that for a modeler to put something out and be upset if it gets used, that is is petty. But none of the modelers have yet said that they would actually be upset. I know its impossible to fulfill my requests if i'm arguing "the other side," but don't take offense to things i say. Just because i'm arguing that side doesn't meen i necsecarily agree with it. Thanks for the art praise sharkey, where exactly did you see it? And exactly which peice did you like?

Attached Link: http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

>>>First, What's the pfo?<<< Poser Forum Online. >>>Second, the questions is whether or not the modeler has the right to tell an artist what they can and cannot do with something that they give away for free. There's no specified agreement on any rules.<<< Yes, there is. It is called copyright law. It is also known as the Berne Convention on International Copyright Protection or some equally noble sounding title. The United States and MOST of the civilized world belong to it. >>>When they GIVE it away they also GIVE up rights to it.<<< No, they do not. Again, copyright law. >>>Why do they have the right to tell someone what they can and cannot do with it.<<< Again, copyright law. >>>THEY GAVE IT AWAY! It was GIVEN to soemone else.<<< Irrelevant. >>>why do they have the right to control it after they GAVE it away.<<< In case this has not been mentioned, copyright law gives them that right. >>>I can't believe people think they have rights to something they GAVE away.<<< Arthur C. Clarke GIVES you a copy of his book. That doesn't mean you can produce a movie from it. >>>I need something to do, i'm running low on ideas.<<< Read a book on copyright law. Or, at the very least, visit the linked site. It is not in lawyer-speak nor does it go into great depth, but it does shatter at least 10 of the greatest myths in regard to copyright. You may not SEE the protection or you may DISAGREE with the protection, but the protection is still there.

When I initiated the question it wasn't because i wanted to argue. It was because the non commercial use message seemed like a grey area, i was right.<<< No, you were not. >>>We're approaching 100 reply's and still no correct, cut and dry answer.<<< No, you just do not appear to agree with that cut and dry answer. >>>The fact is, however, it is not a cut and dry case (legally or ethically).<<< And that is where the problem looms. Even if we were to accept your argument that it was not "cut and dry" legally (Though it is), it is DEFINITELY cut and dry ethically. If you cannot see that then we are on different wavelengths completely.

To Spiffyandstuff: I've seen your pictures here on the gallery, but only while i have the luck to surf with a ISDN-Modem. I like the Neon-Girl, because the colors of her make-up goes close to the background. SHARKEY

Yes, there is. It is called copyright law. It is also known as the Berne Convention on International Copyright Protection or some equally noble sounding title. The United States and MOST of the civilized world belong to it.<<< We're not discussing copyright laws, so your argumentitive reply is without purpose. If you had bothered to read any of the other replys you would have seen the copyright issue has already been resolved. >>>No, they do not. Again, copyright law.<<< You're comments are again worthless, we're not talking about copyright. >>>Again, copyright law.<<< Again, not the issue. >>>Irrelevant.<<< You are once again wrong. >>>In case this has not been mentioned, copyright law gives them that right.<<< In case this has not been mentioned, copyright laws aren't the issue. >>>Arthur C. Clarke GIVES you a copy of his book. That doesn't mean you can produce a movie from it.<<< You see, cas, Arthur C. Clarkes book has what is called a copyright on it, thats why you can't make a movie about it. And you would be right, if you weren't wrong. You seem a bit slow so let me repeat myself, we aren't talking about copyright laws. >>>Read a book on copyright law. Or, at the very least, visit the linked site. It is not in lawyer-speak nor does it go into great depth, but it does shatter at least 10 of the greatest myths in regard to copyright.<<< Read the other replys. Or at least check out what the name of this thread is, objects and the "not for commercial use" statment. Now does the thread name mention anything about copyright laws? Besides your own , does the word "copyright" even show up in the last forty posts? >>>No, you were not.<<< Yes i was correct, if it weren't a grey area there wouldn't be so many replys. >>>No, you just do not appear to agree with that cut and dry answer.<<< I can't believe how many times you have been wrong. No it is not cut and dry. If it were, i repeat, there wouldn't be so many replys. >>>And that is where the problem looms. Even if we were to accept your argument that it was not "cut and dry" legally (Though it is), it is DEFINITELY cut and dry ethically. If you cannot see that then we are on different wavelengths completely. <<< I think you would agree the courts make the decisions. If you had bothered to read the posts you would see that they have ruled in the favor of both arguments on paralleled cases. As for ethically it is absolutly not cut and dry, there are so many ways to look at it. If you cannot see that then we are on different wavelengths completely.

As for peregrinator, if you don't care to read it, then don't. Nobody made you read it and nobody asked you to post an nasty message. I doubt that SixPacWolf carews to here what you have to say either. Thanks Sharkey, it means a lot.

We're not discussing copyright laws, so your argumentitive reply is without purpose. If you had bothered to read any of the other replys you would have seen the copyright issue has already been resolved. <<< I have read ALL the other replies. Your question, since you seemed to have forgotten it was -- "Second, the questions is whether or not the modeler has the right to tell an artist what they can and cannot do with something that they give away for free. There's no specified agreement on any rules." And the answer to that is copyright law. The fact that you apparently do not like the answer does not detract from its accuracy. >>>You're comments are again worthless, we're not talking about copyright.<<< Question after question in your message is answerable with two words, the two words you seem desperate to avoid for some reason -- COPYRIGHT LAW. What gives the creator the power to state how his creation can be used? COPYRIGHT LAW. You made the statement that -- "When they GIVE it away they also GIVE up rights to it." and In fact, it seems that to post it on a free download site you are forfeiting all legal rights if there's no copyright. I never thought this subget would generate so much stir. Anyone with an opinion please respond. You were and are wrong. Why? COPYRIGHT LAW. And the volumes of legal precedent supports the conclusion that you were and are wrong. You asked for opinions and Im giving mine. Sorry to force you into a hissy fit just because the truth does not conform to your bottom-line. >>> >>>Arthur C. Clarke GIVES you a copy of his book. That doesn't mean you can produce a movie from it.<<< You see, cas, Arthur C. Clarkes book has what is called a copyright on it, thats why you can't make a movie about it. And you would be right, if you weren't wrong. You seem a bit slow so let me repeat myself, we aren't talking about copyright laws.<<<<<< And the same protections that apply to Mr. Clarkes book, apply to a mesh. I will ignore your ongoing insults as I have seen it many times in children when they are not getting their way. >>> >>>Read a book on copyright law. Or, at the very least, visit the linked site. It is not in lawyer-speak nor does it go into great depth, but it does shatter at least 10 of the greatest myths in regard to copyright.<<<<<< Read the other replys. Or at least check out what the name of this thread is, objects and the "not for commercial use" statment. Now does the thread name mention anything about copyright laws? Besides your own , does the word "copyright" even show up in the last forty posts?<<< Irrelevant. The right that you questioned that gives the creator of those objects you are coveting to decide how they may or may not be used is the right given them by copyright. Oh, and at least 5 of the last forty posts discussed and/or mentioned copyright. >>> >>>No, you were not.<<< Yes i was correct, if it weren't a grey area there wouldn't be so many replys.<<<<<< You stated earlier that the copyright issue has already been resolved. Which is it? Resolved or a grey area? So, the number of replies determines accuracy? Truth? Or would it be more accurate to assume that the vast majority of those here are artists, many of them very, very good artists who have little or no legal knowledge and have never believed that they might need to protect themselves against someone who believes -- When they GIVE it away they also GIVE up rights to it. >>>>>>No, you just do not appear to agree with that cut and dry answer.<<< I can't believe how many times you have been wrong. No it is not cut and dry. If it were, i repeat, there wouldn't be so many replys.<<<<<< You have a great deal of growing up to do, boy. This is only one of many posts that is evidence of that. Here is one principle to learn The number of replies is NOT directly proportional to the relevant truth. >>>>>>And that is where the problem looms. Even if we were to accept your argument that it was not "cut and dry" legally (Though it is), it is DEFINITELY cut and dry ethically. If you cannot see that then we are on different wavelengths completely. <<< I think you would agree the courts make the decisions.<<<<<< Thank you! Yes, they do. And the volume of their decisions in regards to the rights of the creator and his COPYRIGHT protections proves your assumptions and statements to be self-justifying, self-serving inaccuracies. The question is what is it you are trying to justify? >>>If you had bothered to read the posts you would see that they have ruled in the favor of both arguments on paralleled cases.<<< No. I saw opinions, respected opinions, from other members. There were no case rulings quoted. >>>As for ethically it is absolutly not cut and dry, there are so many ways to look at it. If you cannot see that then we are on different wavelengths completely.<<< If Sharkey makes an object and says This may not be used for commercial purposes of any kind. Id say that is pretty damn cut and dried. Id say that that object is Sharkeys and if he doesnt want it used commercially then it doesnt get used commercially. Why? (Here comes that damn word you hate so much!) COPYRIGHT. Ethically, it would be theft if used contrary to Sharkeys expressed wishes. Period. And that IS the ONLY way it should be looked at. YOU obviously do not see it that way. For that reason alone, I am very glad we are on different wavelengths. And for that reason, you have also shown you are not worthy of further time. I only hope that the artists in this community keep wary eyes on you. SWOOOOOOSH! ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss PLONK!

This thread never should have gotten farther than post #2 ~Ken

Well, what has this discussion tell to me ? 1. I have changed my new readme-files to: "COPYRIGHT & DISTRIBUTION: By using this downloaded file, User agrees to abide by the following conditions of this agreement: AT NO TIME are these works to be re-distributed or sold without written notification from the copyright holder. There's no limitation about using them in images." 2. I wish Spiffyandstuff the intention he needs to stay save in the life and don't have to learn about this in the hard way. (Means the way who can cost a lot of money) Maybee in the future if he also creates things i'm shure he will remember back what his opinion was. I'm also shure, then he will laugh all about his words he has typed here. Personal note to Spiffyandstuff: See deep in your heart and you will feel what's the right way. Have now disabled the mailing-notification, means this discussion is closed for me. SHARKEY

Now isn't this all such a shame huh? Seems no matter what some folks just don't get it nohow!! You know what they say, you can lead a thristy ass to water but can you make it drink??? You tell me.

Cas, do you understand that you have to get a copyright? It doesn't just materialize when you say, "i have a copyright." Do you understand that, does it register? Now, look at the name of the thread. In your next reply retype the name of the thread, just to make sure you understand that copyright is not the issue. Nobody seems to understand that i don't use non-commercial use objects. I've repeatedly stated this but, apparently the majority of the people replying to this post are about as slow as cas. I'll leave it at this, just because i'm arguing in the favor of a controversial issue doesn't mean i am in favor of that issue. I have stated this in nearly every one of my recent posts, talk about thick cambriums. Cripes, i can't believe people are so defensive about a silly little hobbie. Sharkey> i know perfectly well what is right, i have a fine set of ethics.

for you it might be a silly little hobby, as for myself, Im steadily being paid for my work. And to set the record straight, the creator automatically obtains copyright from the moment his/her item is created-without the need to officially file it in the copyright office. Ken

It's not just the fact that your continuing to argue about this stuff all the time spiffy, but it's your attitude that's making this all kinda a busy thread. It's a sensitive issue to all the folks that toil with this stuff and your making it sound like a bunch of baloney that means diddly about them all having rights to put restrictions on their things. Can we start selling YOUR work now? I think I know of a nice pay site that may just take your work and post it and I don't think you'll mind since it don't matter, I am sure you didn't copyright it anyways, right?

I'm not taking peoples finished artwork and selling it. I am substantially changing the combonation of I's and O's. I know perfectly well that taking an object i get for free and selling the file is beyond wrong. But the argument is whether the render of an object is the same as the file of an object. I'm curious as to how fasttraxx figures that coyrights automatically come into creation with the stating of its existence. I can't imagine how he could be right, but if he is i suppose that blows radarts argument. On a side note> Where is this pay site. (If pettyness prevents you from exposing this information, I will understand) Well, on behalf of all of you i will let the argument rest, and as things so often happen in this PC society. I will keep my opinions to my self, refrain from further stating my opinion, and in the future, i will do my very best to conform to that of the majority. I apologise if i have upset, offended, or hurt anyone. I now see that even the complaint and debate forum has been corrupted by the majority. I am sorry for my opinion, please don't hold it against me. I will no longer post replys on this issue.

Copyright protection exists from the time the work is created in a fixed form:that is, it is an incident of the process of authorship. The copyright in the work of authorship immediatly becomes the property of the author who created it.-Circular 1,Copyright Basics provided by the US Copyright office. That is how copyright is obtained-the moment you create it, you own the copyright to it. It does not have to be formally registered to own the copyright. I dont figure anything about it-The info Ive qouted is directly from the US Copyright office, and as far as teh USA is concerned-thats the law, its also the same with the majority of the International copyright laws. I have no problem with yuo stating your opinion, or have anything against you, it's just this thread has been going for so long, and rehashing the same thing over and over, there honestly is no debate about the commercial use of objects-The creator of a object automatically by law owns full copyright to his/her creation, and under those same laws have every right to dictate the use of their creatoin. we might not like that, We might not agree to that-but that is the law-plain and simple-cut and dry.

Spiffy........there IS NO pay site! It was a sarcastic remark. Your artwork? Copyright? People's files? Copyright? I was trying to MAKE a point? Kinda FLEW right past ya? Wow!

{Cas, do you understand that you have to get a copyright? It doesn't just materialize when you say, "i have a copyright." Do you understand that, does it register? Now, look at the name of the thread. } You have a technical copyright the moment a work is deemed "finished." For an enforceable, legal copyright, you SHOULD have an attorney or CPA sign an affadavit proving you created the product, but that is not - and should not be - required in all cases. Trademarks have to be registered (I know; my company is running into a road-block on this count!); copyrights are an implied right that CAN - but does not HAVE TO BE - registered to hold.

From the US Federal Code, Title 17, Section 302 "Duration of copyright": "In General. - Copyright in a work created on or after January 1, 1978, subsists from its creation and, except as provided by the following subsections, endures for a term consisting of the life of the author and 70 years after the author's death." And from Title 17, Section 101 "Definitions": "A work is ''created'' when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time; where a work is prepared over a period of time, the portion of it that has been fixed at any particular time constitutes the work as of that time, and where the work has been prepared in different versions, each version constitutes a separate work."

Will this apply to other countries? Say some Mexican steals our work and starts profiting from it, can we go after him and sue his ass?? Just wondering ;-)

Ok, Rad ... from THE BERNE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF LITERARY AND ARTISTIC WORKS (Paris Text 1971): Article 9, "(1) Authors of literary and artistic works protected by this Convention shall have the exclusive right of authorizing the reproduction of these works, in any manner or form." Article 16, "(1) Infringing copies of a work shall be liable to seizure in any country of the Union where the work enjoys legal protection. (2) The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall also apply to reproductions coming from a country where the work is not protected, or has ceased to be protected. (3) The seizure shall take place in accordance with the legislation of each country."

Cool, thanks rcook. ;-)

Attached Link: http://www.angelfire.com/pa3/marty/index.html

At the risk of getting flamed, I believe that the terms speak for theirselves. It's copyright infringement anyway you look at it. If the terms say you can't use it for commercial use then you can't use it for commercial use in any way shape or form! A good example of this is Disney. A day care center used their cartoon characters on their building and Disney sued, they won and to make a long story short the characters were taken off the building! I think that you should put yourself in the copyrighter's shoes. You work hard and slave labor over a graphic/model whatever and someone is making money off of your work and you're not seeing a dime! How would you feel then? Of course its alright if you the copyrighter gives your permission but can you at least see the point?