I was up all night with this question, so now I put it to you to redeem or destroy my faith in the Poser Community as a whole. Things we all know: It is wrong to take someone else's textures and change a few pixels... add a tattoo... hue shift it... put your name on it and sell it. It is wrong to take someone else's .obj, delete some parts, add a few bows, put your name on it and sell it. It is wrong to take someone else's render and put it on your website without permission even if you give credit for it. It is wrong to identically copy someone else's idea for a texture pack such that you have to do a side by side comparision of where the buttons are to show that yours is different. It is wrong to identically copy someone else's idea for a clothing pack or character such that you have to do a side by side comparison of where the moles and dimples are to prove yours are different. These are things we all know, these are things we will publicly attack, berate, belittle, and generally anahilate people for doing to us and to fellow artists. Why then is Daz being publicly congratulated and thanked for http://www.daz3d.com/shop.php?op=itemdetails&item=2882&cat=5 I have seen numerous people complimenting the creator and thanking Daz for making available a pack that they clearly identify as being the 'Paine' pack. For those of you completely clueless as to who Paine is ... http://www.ffextreme.com/ffx-2/artwork/6.jpg http://www.ffextreme.com/ffx-2/artwork/7.jpg She is one of the 3 main characters from a Playstation 2 game called Final Fantasy X-2, by Square-Enix. I have contacted Daz and the person I talked to seemed unconcerned about the copyright violation, but I don't know if I find it more disturbing that they don't seem to care or that people are applauding them for doing it in the first place knowing not only the exact character it is supposed to be but knowing also that the character has a copyright associated with it. Why this effects me? I have a dream of someday doing character design for Square-Enix. Do poser users only protect the rights of poser users? When I attain my dream of working for Square-Enix doing exactly this sort of character design, will you all no longer protect my rights? Or the rights of the company that employes me? Will my rights no longer matter because I didn't make the character for you? Please consider these questions carefully and consider whether or not this package is actually honoring Square-Enix's investment in a fantastic artist's skill, or if it is using that artist's skill and Square-Enix's investment to put money in their pockets without offering any of it back to the original designer by getting it officially licensed. Please reaffirm my belief in the poser community standing up for 'ARTISTS' of any medium, not just its own. Do the right thing. Lady Littlefox

If it is a copyright violation which looks like it is, it will not be the first one DAZ is involved in. People at the DAZ forums really don't care about these things at all. All the can say is praise DAZ, praise all of the associates. Hardly anyone will speak out against DAZ in their forums. I had an issue with the new Mil Cats (not copyright violation related at all). Most people go wow at these animals while something is completely wrong with them. But most (almost everyone) people of there don't care. They are very gullible the only want stuff, all they do is buy and buy and buy some more and praise DAZ for the great content they create. Most customers at DAZ couldn't care less about the copyright violation, but at times DAZ does care. Get the original creator to contact them about this matter and see what will happen next. DAZ has recalled items before because of copyright violation. I'm still wondering how DAZ operates anyway. One day they seem very carefull about such issues and very customer caring and the next day it seems like they could care less about such issues and their customers.

Artwork and 3DToons items, create the perfect place for you toon and other figures!

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/index.php?vendor=23722

Due to the childish TOS changes, I'm not allowed to link to my other products outside of Rendo anymore :(

Food for thought.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYZw0dfLmLk

I don't recall ever seeing anyone at DAZ calling it the "Paine pack", but I was quite surprised to see the similarities. If you look closely at some of the clothing texture packs, you'll see a Yuna-esque one too. It's possible, though perhaps unlikely, that no one at DAZ is familiar with Paine and is unaware of this potential violation. Let's wait until after the holiday weekend to see what happens. SnowS

my DeviantArt page: http://snowsultan.deviantart.com/

 

I do not speak as a representative of DAZ, I speak only as a long-time member here. Be nice (and quit lying about DAZ) and I'll be nice too.

I had to look at them side by side, but when you're right, you're right. I had considered buying the product but now I have my doubts. Worry sinks in at this point over all the other stuff I've bought, or got in freebie dls, over the years. I believe in artist rights, no matter what caliber, and I lecture my kids constantly about buying their music or videos and not ripping them.

Thank you for pointing this out, I greatly admire your work.

3DMark

Message edited on: 11/27/2004 10:54

Quite recently DAZ had to recall a vehicle, I think it was a tank, because of copyright violation. Also, just after they bought Bryce, they were using images by one of the guys at the Bryce forum for advertising. They eventually had to contact him, but I think they came to an amicable agreement. The way they operate at times can seem pretty precarious which is strange since they are always proclaiming how good they are as a company. I do hope this issue gets sorted out because I'd hate to believe that DAZ were purposely denying compensation to the original creator.

Why not contact Square-Enix and ask them to look into it? Then if they have a problem, their lawyers can deal with it. Or is it easier to try and whip up an anti-DAZ mob? Yeah the Warrior Class pack is almost exactly like the character you show. Only a few differences that I could see compareing images. But if creating a model that comes close to 'looking' like an established character is a copyright violation then the 'community' is in some deep deep doo-doo. Seriously, check out the Evil Dead Ash, Lara Croft, Matrix, Underworld and the other hundred 'look alike' items on sale here, at DAZ and all the other poser sites. Sure they aren't called by those names wink wink but we all know don't we? I honestly don't know the exact laws that cover likeness and design copyright. I know you can't copyright ideas but how close can something be before it a violation? Maybe Cooler knows... but even so if you're gonna whip up a mob to draw a line in the sand... make sure that your not standing on the side closest to the ocean cause you might get wet.

Whoa! I never knew that. I have Aiko, saw that outfit, thought it was cool and probably would have bought later. Not now, though. Thanks for the heads-up. I gotta be extra careful there now, having been burned by the Blackhawk & Hummer fiascos :-(

littlefox, Daz is concerned with copyright problems and if you have any doubts about a product use the contact us form http://www.daz3d.com/support/contact_form.php these are always read by the Daz staff. They do have someone who worries about the copyright end of things and I am sure that your concerns will reach the right person. I am not sure about the copyright on certain designs of clothing. (most of that outfit can be dated to the 1980 style of dressing) So I can't really comment on that issue. aeilkema...People at the DAZ forums really don't care about these things at all. All the can say is praise DAZ, praise all of the associate Umm actually you are wrong. There has been plenty of comments negative and otherwise about some products. We encourage people to speak about problems with the products (how else will they fix them?) but we always suggest people email tech support or the creator of the item. MilBigCat just got a face lift. btw. Littlefox I encourage you to use the contact us form, I will let the Staff and Forum team know of your thread. While I can't guarentee an answer for you, at least your concern was brought up to everyone. Thanks J.Greenlees Daz Forum Team

It's not the first case. Just to name a few : Swordswoman for She-Freak + Adventuress Sidekick for SP = Xena warrior pincess. Jungle Queen boat = African Queen boat. Celeste character and clothes = some recent film character whose name I forgot. The last one got me in trouble, because I didn't know the film it was taken from (something about a vampire or werewolf huntress) and made a pic with it, which was refused. I have no problem with DAZ making copyrighted characters, it's their choice. But I do object that they don't advertise it frankly.

Exhales.... I don't want to start up an anti-Daz Mob... that is not at all my intention. As you said, there are many other examples of this sort of thing running rampant all over the poser community... many other copyright protected characters being expoloited commercially... But where do we as an artist community draw a line on what is stealing from another artist and what is 'okay' because it isn't close enough? This isn't a Daz only problem. This is, I fear, a community problem that is getting out of hand, to the point that people will grab their torches and pitch forks at the merest mention of someone possibly stealing a texture from someone else and selling it..... or publishing a render or making a tube of a a render without the artist's permission... We afford our fellow artists rights and protect them zealously... even fanatically... But we turn a blind eye to a artist employed by a movie or gaming company's work? Is there artwork any less valid than ours because they have a sallery? Line I refer to is not for or against daz, the line I refer to is where is the line between right and wrong.... where does it become okay to ignore a copyright?

I don't think she's trying to whip up an anti-DAZ mob Moonbiter, she already contacted them personally and tried to get an answer. People might not like it, but going public is often the most efficient way to get things done. Honestly, I don't believe this is DAZ's fault; we're going to have to wait and see if the creator (Frances, I think?) makes a statement and then see what DAZ does SnowS

Message edited on: 11/27/2004 11:28

my DeviantArt page: http://snowsultan.deviantart.com/

 

I do not speak as a representative of DAZ, I speak only as a long-time member here. Be nice (and quit lying about DAZ) and I'll be nice too.

This is a really important issue, I think. Quite aside from the very valid moral/ethical issues at stake, it's very frustrating as a consumer to buy models which are later revealed to be copied from something in a movie or game. I don't do fan art!! Something worn by a character in a game is completely useless to me. Unfortunately, as I don't have my finger on the pulse of the game industry, I often have no idea what the inspiration for a particular product is. I rely on the integrity of the Poser vendor...sometimes to my detriment. I recently was enjoying an extremely popular film for the first time and saw...to my horror...a model I had bought a few months before, flitting merrily around on the screen. I now cannot possibly use that model, excellent though it is. (And I remember how excited I was when it came out, too. If only I had known!) I cannot claim to know the ins and outs of copyright law, but I agree with compiler that I would really like to know when something is a "lookalike". Thanks again, Lady Littlefox, for raising this whole issue. You are one of the most original artists making Poser models today, and they just keep getting better and better. I sincerely hope you achieve all of your dreams, though our community will be much the poorer on the day you leave us to follow a different road. :-) Kimberly

No pitchforks, we (or at least I do) believe that an undead army of blood-sucking lawyers work the internet spreading terror all their own, and that Daz, etc..., has an army of copywright wizards sleeplessly going over everything. :)

Mob probably wasn't the right term but Lady Little Fox has pointed out a serious issue in the community and from the way the original and the first reply was written it seemed to me that it was meant to attack only DAZ. I apologize to Lady Little Fox for the impression I gave by saying whiping up a mob. Without a doubt this is something that needs to be addressed within the whole community and after thinking about it, this probably falls more under intellectual property rights than true copyright. No one wants to be a party to violating a copyright and while I personally have no problems buying clothing, items and gear that are based off of movies, games or other 'copyrighted' materials if they are 'look alikes'; the question is just how close is to close? In most cases I think it would be something that has to be determined by the copyright holder. They are the ones who maybe damaged by a look alike. Tossing it out here before going to Square-Enix does more to hurt DAZ's rep and bottom line than it does to fix the issue. If Square had been notified and said 'Hey! You can't do that" and DAZ ignored them, then I could see going to the forums to make the community aware of the issue. But at this point we can only speculate if there truely is an violation of intellectual property or copyright.

There's a difference between copyright and trademark, and a lot of this sort of stuff can be OK under copyright law, but in breack of a trademark. It's become more complicated as extra bits have been added, such as "Registered Designs", but that's the basic element. You gallery image has copyright. People can't take it and put it elsewhere without your permission. But unless you'd gone through some extra procedures, they could say "That's a cool look, I'll copy it for Vicky", and stay legal. Depending on the source pf the stuff listed, trademarks could be involved. If they are, and the trademark holder discovers what DAZ is doing, they have to send a cease-&-desist letter. Trademarks are like that. Trademarks can also lapse. There's a regular renewal required, unlike copyright. And the original boat in the movie "The African Queen" might be commonplace enough that it couldn't be trademarked. As for the recently withdrawn models, a Blackhawk helicopter, an M1 tank, and a Hummvee, the Blackhawk has been restored. But what I have seen for myself, and comments in DAZ forums, suggest that the modeller made a poor job of the UV maps and texturing, and that was obvious enough that I am astonished DAZ didn't notice.

I recently was enjoying an extremely popular film for the first time and saw...to my horror...a model I had bought a few months before, flitting merrily around on the screen. I now cannot possibly use that model, excellent though it is. (And I remember how excited I was when it came out, too. If only I had known!) That's my concern too. If I buy something to use commercially, I want to know that I'm able to use the models and not worry that the cover I'm going to sell to a writer has got one of FF's main characters in it, just because I'm not familiar with the game. Not all of us use Poser as a hobbyist, some of us do sell our renders. There is a difference between "inspired by" and "copied exactly" This is surely more of an ethical matter than a legal one, but I thnk it needs to be addressed.

What we do in life, echoes in eternity.

E-mail | Renderosity Homepage | Renderosity Store | RDNA Store

"As for the recently withdrawn models, a Blackhawk helicopter, an M1 tank, and a Hummvee, the Blackhawk has been restored. But what I have seen for myself, and comments in DAZ forums, suggest that the modeller made a poor job of the UV maps and texturing, and that was obvious enough that I am astonished DAZ didn't notice." erm no. Skondris stated they were being withdrawn for copyright reasons.

Well here's the core question I have... is the person in the 'right' if they do wrong but aren't caught? Or are they perpetuating a myth that is harmful to the community that because they didn't get caught, 'right' doesn't matter? It is a dangerous road to tred... do we as a community truly need lawyers to tell us when something is wrong or can we as a community tell the difference between right and wrong for ourselves and try to encourage people to stop doing the wrong even if they aren't getting caught.

It's quite confusing, indeed. But I've found some useful information here: http://www.starvingartistslaw.com Awhile back, somebody in the copyright forum asked about celebrity likeness and the law. Check out: http://www.ojr.org/ojr/law/1017956813.php

When you sell or broker to Daz, you're asked if anyone else has any right to your creation, that you own the design. Daz doesn't check that you do, or go through a copyright library to check. They take your word for it. When a copyright problem is discovered and reported, they investigate and take action. Other sites usually handle it the same way. They will immediatly reject something that is obvious copyright infringement, but often until someone points it out to them, theymay be unaware of the infringement. Daz has also become more of a brokering house and produces less original items in-house. Daz originals aren't done by Daz employees so much anymore, as a direct purchase from the creator. That means relying more and more on the honesty of the people who are selling to them. This can be dangerous, but in the long run it's more cost effective to buy a piece and put your name on it than to hire the artist to make pieces every week. It also gives more variation to your product line. Certain items, like the Jungle Queen, are modeled after items that have been used in a movie or game. However, the movie doesn't hold a copyright on the design of the item itself. The boat "African Queen" wasn't designed and built by the studio, it was purchased and used in the movie, that way a car would be. The copyright holder for the design would be the manufacturer of the boat, not the movie. Clothing items are even more nebulous. Two designers can come out with VERY alike dresses for the spring fashion season, but each is just a little different. While many clothing items look like the ones you'll see on the movies or runways, they aren't identical, and that gets around the copyright so long as you don't obviously point out the connection. A hero's costume in yellow, blue, and red may look a lot alike a Superman trademarked costume, but unless it's got the identifying "S", it passes under the wire. However, some things are too exact copies in design. Make a Mickey Mouse and change only the color of his eyes and call him Marty will still get you into trouble. Even the mock-superman costume will, it the owner of the original copyright believes that it's too close to their ownership. It's the option of the copyright holder on whether or not to make a stink. Many don't because of the trouble it would involve. If you see something like that happening, I'd report it first the brokering company, and if it stays and you think it shouldn't, tell the owner of the franchise itself. If nothing happens, then the franchise has decided that 1) it isn't worth the effort, or 2) it's not copyright violation. From an ethical point of view though, I don't like any kind of steal. The clothing/character is awfully close to the orginal. However, it's up to the copyright holder to do something about it. One nice thing about Daz though, when something like this does happen, and there is a copyright problem, the make amends. I purchased a texture here a few months back that was a steal of someone elses work and got stuck with no recompense. Gosh, I'm wordy today. Thanks LF for bringing up an important issue to us all.

Hummm, can't say that I agree. Just because a char in a game or movie has a similar item, does not mean it's automatically a copyright violation. Does that mean all of Jon Malis's char are violating copyright? Look at some of the chars sold at the different sites and then start watching old movies or looking in history books. That costume is close but is not an exact copy. If you want to get crazy how bout the van helsing looking items at rdna? I think the people at the game company should be notified and let them make the decision. Marque

IMHO, an outfit that detailed should be considered to be a work or art. Therefore, if one would like to make a poser/3D re-production of an item like for sale, the original creator should ALWAYS be contacted for a permission. Even if it wasn't exactly required by law, it would definitely be considerate and respectful. I had no idea about the connection, being unfamiliar with the FF games, but I came here to see this thread when Byrdie mentioned it at DAZ forums. But it is undeniable, that the outfits are nearly identical.

Here's an odd question. Suppose one got the Warrior Class clothing pack and put different textures on it? Would it then be a copyright issue? Does copyright or trademark give Square-Enix the ability to lock up an entire style of clothing such that nothing like it can be made? I can see where the design of the outfit in question resembles the outfit that Paine wears, and I can also see where they differ. I've also seen similar outfits in the punk rock styles of the 80's. I realize that the marketing of the outfit brings out the similarities more than the differences but there are differences. I just hate to think of entire strata of clothing becoming unusable because some character wore a very similar design. (This would really get cos-players out of joint. I've seen more that a few cos-play outfits of Paine that are almost spot-on despite being worn by males...) Still I suppose the best people to sort it all out are the lawyers.

Hm, if it turns out there's no problem with it legality-wise and somebody makes a male version, I'll buy. I very likely would have gotten it if it were for Mike or David. Heck, it'd even look good on the Freak.

Just a quick question? Before starting this thread, Did LF or anybody "confirm" that the creator of the item in question did not get permision? Or was all this a jump to conclusions type of thing? Personaly I like to try and belive in the integrity of the artists until it is proven to be wrong ( the whole inocent until proven guilty thing ya know).
Sorry, just my 2 cents.

That is a good point, C Hubert.

Oddly, the more I compare the two outfits, the more differences I spot. despite some comments in this thread they are not entirely identical. C_Hubert: I don't know if anyone asked the artist. I think a lot of people assume that a big company like Square-Enix would never give permission for even the slightest thing.

Well, in my opinion they are similar but have enough differences to not be considered a violation of copy right or trade mark.

In a world filled with causes for worry and anxiety...
we need the peace of God standing guard over our hearts and minds.
 
Jerry McCant

Very good point. I think the original question tho' was "did they or didn't they?" Along with "what will/won't get you in trouble making/using game or movie look-a-likes?" That's what got me interested, as I do a lot of fan art for my personal enjoyment but some people who've bought my original character prints have asked about their favorite movie characters, too. I try to explain about copyright & trademarks, but as you know it can get pretty confusing.

Message edited on: 11/27/2004 14:05

There are some differences, but I think some of the similarities practically prove that Paine was used as the reference for this set. The large, slightly spiked cross on the lapel, the little skull belt buckle, and the fact that the red and black colored parts match those on Paine don't seem like things that could be accidentally be duplicated by basing it on 80's fashion. Even the sword is slightly curved at the end. I think I know what figure you're talking about Sparrowheart, and I was really surprised to see that for sale too. That's beyond similar, it borders on identical. Perhaps the only way we're going to eliminate this problem is for items based on a movie, game, or otherwise to only be distributed freely and state that they cannot be used commercially...but we all know how well rules like that go over. ;) Take care. SnowS

my DeviantArt page: http://snowsultan.deviantart.com/

 

I do not speak as a representative of DAZ, I speak only as a long-time member here. Be nice (and quit lying about DAZ) and I'll be nice too.

It is a good question darken666, but I think my answer atleast woud be if the textures were different there is a chance it wouldn't be an issue. The model is almost identical true but the color scheme makes it completely undeniable to anyone familiar with the character that it is intentionally trying to look as close as possible to the original... even down to the poses used in the promo shots being identical to some of of the art published by the company. At this point the package seems to be focusing not on the skill of the artist to produce something neat in the style of the 1980's rocker, but rather on the skill of the artist to nearly identically copy someone else's work.... And not reproducing it for the pure enjoyment of the series like fan-art and cosplay, but for pure profit. As to permission, this would be a matter of an 'officially licensed product' and they would have to list it as an officially licenced product on the product page and credit would have to be declaired. The page offers only the author and the 'Daz original' as the credits. Again... I reitterate the core question.... should this not be a matter of ethics over legality. Yes it is possible to make all these changes and make it legal, yes it is possible not get prosecuted because Square-enix may not find it worth the effort, yes it is possible to wholesale copy other people's stuff as long as they don't catch you and make you stop..... The question is, why is it a question in the first place to this community that values its rights as artists so highly? Should it really come down to a 'well if I make the buttons red I'm not copying' or should you ethically not even make it a question by not /trying/ to copy up to a point in the first place. There is such a thing as doing something inspired by.... I don't claim to be able to explain this nor do I even think I want to, but as fellow artists, I simply want to appeal to your sense of fairness and mutual respect. If I have caused you to think with this question than I have achieved my only goal... Is there a double standard on whose copyrights we respect and whose we totally ignore based on who uses poser and who doesn't? Is it the responsiblity of those monitoring us to make us do right, or is it our own responsiblity not to do wrong? Is it a world that you want to live in where you have to force people to do the right thing? I leave you with these thoughts because the questions and answers are becoming repetative and there are no easy answers.... there is a problem... I have brought it to your attention... I can't deal with it by myself, no one person can..... if the community feels ethics should be universal than it must be up to the community as a whole, not one person raising their voice. And with those thoughts I leave this thread... What will be, will be... I have had my say. Littlefox

I'm not all that famulair with some gaming/movie characters, what happens if I do a commerical image, and a copyright problem rears its head, because the charactor/model/clothing was, (unknown to me), was copyrighted, and I'm sued?

My question isn't about right or wrong, but about legality. If I were to buy that item at DAZ, and do an animated short with it, and that short got me sued by Square-Enix for violating their registered trademarks or infringing on their IP, would DAZ back me up in court? Because, if that ever happened, there's a good chance my career as an artist and animator would be ruined.

I would be hard pressed to have any opinion on the legal basis of all this, and on the differences between copyright and trade mark. But, as a customer, I expect someone who sells an outfit who looks like a well known outfit to tell me about this lookalikeness before I purchase the item. (and it's not just DAZ, BTW). For instance, I had no idea that this outfit for Aiko was a lookalike from a game. I learned this from this thread. I decided to buy it anyway, but now I know that I must not use these clohting items just as they are, or else I run the risk of producing a lookalike. With this information, I could make an informed decision, which is the basis of commercial relationships (or at least, it should be...). I would have appreciated to see this information in the promo page.

Can the style and cut of an outfit be copyrighted? Thats the question in my mind. I mean, yes - the two outfits are very very similar. But that doesnt mean that anyones copyright has necessarily been violated. I draw ideas from things I see around me all the time - magazines, shop windows, people on the street. We all do, dont we? The person who did the 3D model still had to tediously create each piece himself, texture it, and test it. That sounds like a lot of hard work. The concept of the outfit was the easy part IMO. Now, if Daz had taken someone elses model and changed it slightly, or had taken someone elses textures and modified them - that would be an obvious violation. But the cut and style of clothing is a much more nebulous area, and to be honest I hope we never get so picky that we cant draw inspiration from the outfits we see around us. Otherwise, we all have to become fashion designers in addition to modelers, texturers, renderers, and artists in our own right. Not to be contrary at all - just my thoughts. Best Blessings, --Invidia

My thoughts, exactly Phily. I don't game, so I know squat-all about the characters/sets/props used in them. More familiar with movies, I know of one particular model that's on my Daz wishlist that, when I do get around to buying it, will never be used for anything but fan art for those very reasons. Because it's too close to a certain copyright/trademarked film critter to be taken as anything else. I think you all know which one I mean, it's from an extremely popular book & movie series.

"The concept of the outfit was the easy part IMO." Character concept is an art in itself, and many people are hard working on making a character look just right. It's just as hard as making the 3D mesh, texture, etc... IMO.

Byrdie, if you're refering to that little blue thing, I think some of the morphs and textures give it a life beyond just fan art. :) And Lady LittleFox, I understand your concerns. I wish they'd done with this set what was done with the Lynx outfit, provided a bunch of different textures and reserved the Yuna-like set for one of the pop-ups rather than a main image. Seriously with little effort the Warror Class outfit would be perfect for a punk/raver/whatever. I think the flaw is not in the outfit or it's design, but in the marketing of it.

ok so here's a question for you. And don't take this as a mod talking ok? If the set was marketed in pieces. say shirt and shoes.. leggings and skirt.. would it be any different? Say, i bought the pieces or put it together to look like Paine. (yep i have played final fantasy too btw) is there any difference? Is it the way it's put together or marketed that's the problem? (asking only for my own curiousity)

Yep, it's the little blue fella. If it weren't for the extra morphs & textures you mentioned, I probably wouldn't buy him at all. That'd be too expensive for something with very limited use.

Is it the way it's put together or marketed that's the problem? I'd say both. By putting the pieces together, the odds of someone using them as a set are much greater. If that puts someone at risk for infringing on Square's IP, then it's the responsibility of the content provider to make that known. It's not a copyright violation to sell the oufit I don't think. The big problem is when someone uses the items commercially and Square says, "we didn't give permission to use Paine in a commercial/advert."

get over it the fact of the matter is that it DOESNT count as a copyright infringement. this thing has been goeing on for many many years from callogne to food someone can take chanel #5 duplicate its exact scent but not with the same recipir and sell it with no problem as long as they dont call it by the same name so all they have to do is call it Channel #6 someone can take the butterfinger bar and do the same and call it Peanutbutter Fingers so no it is not a copy right infringement and many many people have been doing it in the poser community for years also relax cool off and get over it

ohh let me clarify what i just said. I'm asking only because we often mix and match clothing to get the look we want. Sooo what I am asking I guess is if it had been just a shirt and skirt and leggings and belt and all that even if it resembled the paine outfit once you put it ALL together is that still a problem? Not making excuses or anything just curious because i have done a lot of characters clothing mixing and matching pieces to get the right look and come up with something that came from a video game. So curious about your thoughts? And just a thought here, while we discuss things none of us are copyright lawyers so none of us really know what's legal or not. I think we are discussing ethics here, rather than law.

"Character concept is an art in itself, and many people are hard working on making a character look just right. It's just as hard as making the 3D mesh, texture, etc... IMO." I didnt mention character concept at all. Im talking about outfits - tops, skirts, leggings, boots, etc. And yes, no doubt quite a lot of work goes into that. I didnt say it was easy (though some outfits are certainly easier than others), I said I thought it was the easiest part of the process. That is still my opinion. I have a friend who is an editor, and as such she hears a lot of people who have these wonderful ideas for books and screenplays. The people always swear her to secrecy because they dont want their idea stolen. This makes her laugh because, as they say in the business, "the plot is the cheapest part of the book." Yes, original ideas take time and creativity, but they are a far cry from the actualization of a movie/book/3D model. Which is why I brought up the question in the first place: Can the concept for an outfit be copyrighted? I dont think the answer is yes, though characters can be trademarked so particular outfits probably can be as well. Best Blessings, --Invidia

Stormrage, check my message above yours for my thoughts on the matter. Another alternative way to market it would be what JHoagland has done with his TruckR package. It's in the style of a certain transforming semi-truck from a popular cartoon of the 1980s. However the texture set and addons to make it look almost identical are available separately as a freebie. If legal action were taken it would simply be a matter of pulling the freebie rather than scrapping the whole set.

"It's not a copyright violation to sell the oufit I don't think. The big problem is when someone uses the items commercially and Square says, "we didn't give permission to use Paine in a commercial/advert." " hmm this brings a thought to mind.. What makes Paine Paine? What makes her a character? Just her clothing or the whole look from her hair on down? I can put together a paine outfit in real life.. but I guarentee I am not her. Would people mistake me for Paine? do the clothes make a character? or does the overall look? Asking because I am into character creations ;)

It'd be great if cooler could say something in this thread about the issue, but you guys caught him on a big holiday (Thanksgiving). However, I wouldn't be surprised if somebody told them to avoid saying anything (which could make things worse). My own humble opinion is that they should pull the item and shut down any threads (which could also make things worse) the minute they get back to work next week. Then go back to the original game plan they had, back in the 90s or whenever, where they work with their strengths, which are the modelling and selling of original characters. If the peanut gallery complains that they aren't doing other people's commercial characters, so much the better. There are still plenty of ripoff sites that are willing to play to the lowest common denominator, allowing Daz to stick to the high road.

@Stormrage : I think it is a whole set of circumstances. Marketting the Adventuress Sidekick would not have brought to my mind the images of Xena, but marketting this outfit and character at the very same time that "Swordswoman for She-Freak" was marketted clearly made the point. The clothes from Celeste character look very much many other clothes in the same vein. But marketting her with the very same rooftop that the original film character stands on in the film really makes the point. As for Aiko, the outfit would have passed unnoticed if it had not been a part of a package specifically designed to recreate the anime look. I don't know about copyrights involved in the African Queen boat. But I guess there is still some unsure area, or else the mesh would have been named "African Queen" instead of "Jungle Queen". To me, it is more a marketting problem : I can handle the copyright risks in my works IF (and only if) I'm informed about a potential problem. To push the matter, I'm becoming unsure about my libraries : how many items have I bought unknowingly that can get me into trouble ? It has happened to me once. How can I know that it won't happen again ?

Another question on this topic : Since the author knows that he has drawn inspiration from a film/game character, and since most people who have posted seem to think that it's not really a copyright problem, then what would be the risk for the author to clearly advertise his inspiration ?

Gaaaa... Now I have a headache

Maybe because some people, especially certain IP owners & their lawers, automatically translate "inspired by" to "ripped off from"? And if you think I'm joking or being sarcastic, consider Anne McCaffrey and the matter of folks who draw dragons. Any and all dragons, not just those Pernese critters.

Which would get into the most trouble? Daz (the publisher), the creator, or the person who unknowingly uses the item? It would make sense that the other two would be in more trouble than the user. Though I dont know how it works legally =/.

compiler.. not arguing the point mind you but do the clothes make the character or does the whole character hair, accessories, sword, whatever and clothing make the character? I am not sure any of us have the answers we are looking for on this. A lawyer would but amazingly enough.. i haven't found one in this community lol

@Stormrage : I cannot answer on a lawyer point of view, just as an end user "artist" and as a physician. 1- The notoriety of the character comes into play. The African Queen is a classic, whereas this recent film about a werewolf huntress is known to few. Tauru once made a cute japanese school uniform that I have used in a couple of pics until someone pointed to me that it was Evangelion's Rey Ayanami's school outfit. I knew about the plugsuits from this OAV (Tauru had made them for Poser), but never had heard about the school outfit. In this case, it was the green colour that gave it away. 2- The completeness of the outfit. The Celeste clothes I used are composed of a corselet, pants, shoes, long cloak, and 2 pistols. When I used all these in a single pic, the guy who had ordered the pic told me "hey! it's (insert name here, I just cannot remember), why did you cut her hair ? By the way, I had asked for an original work, not a copycat...". You get the idea. 3- As a physician, it would be a little long to get into how the human mind recognises items, and the circuits involved from the visual perception, to the recognition, to the reminiscences of linked memories. For our topic it's enough to say that when we perceive an image, the brain tries to recognise it. If it is not stored exactly "as is" in our memory, the brain looks for similar memories, checks in what contexts these memories were stored, and tries to see which one matches the current context. It does thus for as many significant points he sees, and then makes a decision. The more "check points" that are matching, the closer the association.

Maybe the people in the copyright forum would know a bit more about this. Does R'osity have designated legal experts when issues like this are presented? It might be good for future posts if there was an official designee who could accurately advise on all this legal stuff... Just a thought.

By the way : I just checked Daz' forum for Aiko3. They seem to have a "cat girl" in preparation. http://forum.daz3d.com/postimages/origimage_1_124961.jpg Beware : she's a copycat (sorry, I can't resist bad puns...) for Felicia, a character in Darkstalker, a capcom game. http://www.stuart.iit.edu/students/adamadr/images/darkstal/felicia.htm You've been warned...

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

Designer knockoffs are big business in the retail world. I guess the 3D world is no different.

My RMP Store ; My Free Stuff

Wow! Great link! Could you post to the copyright forum, too, please? Hm, maybe we should have a place to put useful things like this.

I'd like to step in here as just an off again/on again Poser user and developer. Intellectual property rights shouldn't be violated, no matter how well meaning. You can have a character be inspired by another, sure, but to swipe a character design (and it's not just clothes in this issue, her hair, face, sword, etc. are similar) in such a way that it's clearly the case is just wrong. You can quibble about this texture or that texture but point of fact is, the overall character design, stance, and features are just too close. I have a line of characters coming out that are in the vein of Final Fantasy but none, not one of them, looks as plainly derived from a Final Fantasy character as this. Granted, I have the benifit of drawing/design experience under my belt and a vast array of previous, original designs to draw from but still...wrong is wrong. I'm surprised anyone had to even ask about this. It's one thing to provide it free and give credit, but to try and sell it and pass it off as original in anyway, is really unacceptable. I'd hate to see my designs or chracters being ripped, given a change of skin, and re=sold by someone who liked my work enough to copy it but not enough to respect my rights or the time it took me to create it. Someone will notify Square-Enix, and Daz will have to re-think the model or be sued, I'm certain.

Compiler: Excuse me, but if big hair on a cat automatically makes her a copy of something than that is completely absurd. Cats have certain things in common, paws, ears, tails and claws. Anime in general has a certain style. So, if you're saying that because we put paws, claws, a tail and big hair on an anime character that that is copying a character that already exits, that's just ridiculous. I had to look this character up of which you speak. They're not even the same coloring, nor is the hair the same or even the design of the boots and gloves. Just about any cat like costume is probably going to end up being similar to something that's been done before, because of the tell tale features that actually make it a cat costume. When I look at the costume we've put together, I do not see this bright blue haired Felicia character and I feel it would take some fair amount of modifying to create her from it. I like our kitty design better, personally.
(editted for spelling)

Message edited on: 11/27/2004 17:01

Its so cruel! I love both Final Fantasy and Daz's works... Has anyone contacted Square-Enix?

Attached Link: http://www.poserpros.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=34854&start=20

For those interested Frances has posted a repsonse here

Thanks to those of you who sent me messages about this thread. Forgive me for dropping in late and not taking the time to read the entire thing. I have already had the gist of it several times in the mail and elsewhere

First of all I DID NOT copy the FF design, the outfit may be similar the outfit design was influenced by the very cool FF outfit BUT IT IS NOT THE SAME. I regret now ONLY ONE THING and that is that I intentionally textured the outfit to make people think of the FF outfit. It was a marketing decision, and as it turned not a good one.

I cannot decide whether to be flattered that my presentaion was (if misguided) so effective to have caused such a ruckus or insulted to think that people believe me so completely devoid of integrity and talent (not to mention intelligence) that I have no recourse but to rip off someone elses material

Daz and I and have discussed the issue and made changes to the outfit based on this discussion. I do not believe that I have violated anyone's copyright the outfit IS different. Daz apparantly agrees with me and the changes that are being made now are a direct response to the community.

So yes they are listening, yes we are doing something about it.

..

Gill

       

Compiler, why cast aspersions against Catgirl? she is not in any way intended to be a copycat of Felicia, I hope that she is a better more versitile figure than that, but for those of you who wish to make the comparison here is an image.

and now is when every modeler is thrown to the wolves for creating "similar design" Felicia and catgirl (aside from regular catlike features Which are normal for any cat. (who's going to sue them btw for looking like felicia) ) are nothing alike at all. Truthfully guys this is why i am really against any discussions like these. Instead of facts people start bring up "others" who have done this thing too and how wrong it is. they drag the innocents into it cast doubts on them and DO NOTHING after it's been made. If square-enix has a problem with it it should be them not one of us to come in and say hell no. Not the community guessing. If you think you will have problems with the outfit that's your choice. I rarely use an outfit as it is presented. I use the pieces to create my own look. So before this gets any more heated and any more harmful to the merchants why not let square enix and Daz deal with the issues? It's them who have to anyway.

I don't think there's any real double standard here. Literally copying someone else's mesh or texture is not the same thing as creating a product that's similar to something else. As several people have noted, it's very common to copy trademarked and copyrighted items, and just file the serial numbers off. A plastic toy gun that looks very like a Star Trek phaser, but is sold as "Laser pistol." The K-Mart versions of Paris haute couture. Etc.

From what I've seen, making a Poser product similar to another product is acceptable, too. For example, Jepe created a body hair kit for M3 that was very similar to the one Ernyoka made. There was reason to believe that he copied her, because she had posted WIPs. He even used her promo text. While he was forced to change his advertising copy, he was not forced to change the product. Similarly, Wyrm closed his store for awhile because people were copying his magnet system and undercutting his prices. IMO, this item falls in the same category.

That said, I'd be kind of bummed if I bought it, not realizing that its inspiration was widely known. But I suppose if that's a problem, I should make my own damn clothes.

If one reads the DAZ TOS, it is a violation to discuss possible copyright infringement in their forums. DAZ advises people use the proper legal channels to pursue such matters. I've read countless copyright infringement threads in Poser communities, and can't help wonder how many participants are lawyers? How many people have used the legal system to pursue such matters? How many times have we become excited about some potential copyright infringements, only to be told by the site involved that some settlement has been reached, and the terms will not be divulged? People, it's too easy to be wrong when you think you see a violation. It's too easy to ruin an artist's reputation, cause an artist to lose their Internet Connections, etc. If you're not a cop, don't take the law into your own hands. If you're not a lawyer, don't pass out your legal opinions. One of these days, the accusers or lynch mob are liable to get into more trouble than their victims.

You're right all parties involved should have been notified of the problem. I for one, contacted Square as soon as I saw the model and was in the process of hunting the model maker down when fcoffill came on and responded. While it is regretable that this was such a public inquiry, I'm happy to see that fcoffill and Daz recognized there was an issue and has stated that there are changes in the works for the model in question. Having said that, I stand by my opinion of the situation and while I share no ill will toward fcoffill, I will once again stress the need to protect one's intelectual material. It's a very touchy issue for the internet as a whole and it's better to play it safe than take risk without reason.

She went throught the right channels guys I have contacted Daz and the person I talked to seemed unconcerned about the copyright violation, but I don't know if I find it more disturbing that they don't seem to care or that people are applauding them for doing it in the first place knowing not only the exact character it is supposed to be but knowing also that the character has a copyright associated with it. The product is a DAZ original, they bought it and own the rights on the product. I stand by my statement that if something is made to be something else, I want to know so I can make an informed buying decision. No lynch mob, just a request as a customer. From the sounds of this thread there are many others that wish the same.

What we do in life, echoes in eternity.

E-mail | Renderosity Homepage | Renderosity Store | RDNA Store

Yes, it would appear that way. Something for all to think of in the future. However, this particular matter seems to be working itself out, as both the merchant and Daz will be attempting to alter the model so it no longer resembles Paine as much as it does currently. We can only hope in the future such changes won't be needed but that is the future and right now, it's up in the air. I think we can let this go and see how things proceed. Should any other doubts be raised, we'll have to promise ourselves to contact ALL parties invloved before moving to public forums.

Where is the line drawn? Why is it that when DAZ does this you are all up in arms? Daz is the devil you people love to persecute. And yet the following items are found here Louis from Interview with a Vampire http://market.renderosity.com/softgood.ez?ViewSoftgood=26191 Lara Croft from Tomb Raider http://market.renderosity.com/softgood.ez?ViewSoftgood=32176 Where is the line drawn where it is fine for one site, but causes an uproar when on Daz? Frankly I think it is totally hypocritical the way people are acting about this.

"Why is it that when DAZ does this you are all up in arms? Daz is the devil you people love to persecute." The bigger the company, the more we insist they get things right and the more we castigate them for their wrongdoings. Now, about Micro$oft...pass me a pitchfork eh? ;)

The liver is evil - It must be punished.

The difference is the person who is wronged. While I don't care to see blatant ripoffs of other's properties, such as Lara Croft or Anne Rice's characters, it's not my place to complain, because they're not mine. The personal experience I brought up about DAZ, however, DID involve my own product... therein lies the difference. If others want to "watchdog" DAZ and alert them to copyright infringement on properties that don't belong to them, that's their choice, but not one I would personally make. So don't paint everyone who complains about DAZ with the same brush, please.

No no no! This is the Devil! Coming soon... to Daz.

I deleted my last comment after reading what Francis had to say over at Poser Pros.

Ooh, sexy Satan! For David, I presume?

As sole copyright holder of the Satans-R-Us logo, I resent your misuse of The Devil in this context. My people will be talking to your people pdxjims, and remember we got ALL the best lawyers on our side. ~rotflmao~ I apologise if this post detracts from the seriousness of this thread, but in mitigation I'd like to cite the "Devil made me do it" defense.

The liver is evil - It must be punished.

what are the differences between a game model/character and a poser model/character? poly count. games use low poly models and highly detailed textures. poser uses higher poly models with significant detailing in the models. then adds with more detailing in the texture. but the face in a poser texture is far less detailed than in a game texture. so if the item in question is aimed at high poly models, it is lacking in the details which would be required for duplication of a game character. paint the entire game character, facial features and all onto a texture map. then you have duplicated the game character. if parts are on different models you have a significant difference. renders: would not suggest using commercially a render of a character that really looks like a game character, intentionally or not. a render is a 2d image with no way to prove you were not looking to duplicate the game character. for non commercial work there is less chance of the game company taking offense. should the person creating include inspired by? imho: yes. then prospective buyers have the knowledge we need to make a decision on how the product suits our individual needs. I don't actually play any games, so I would never be making anything inspired by a game. I also do not watch much tv or movies.

I don't knowhow this kind of stuff works. I do remember a new figure that was released. I was reading the news letter and my niece said she had that. I thought that a little strange, she was only 10, didn't know anything about Poser. I told her she must be mistaken and clicked over to Daz. A couple of minutes later, my niece comes back with her Brats doll. I took her to a movie to make up for telling her she was wrong. So where is the line and who draws it.

In any copyright case. It's not up to the community to decide guys. This issue is truly between daz and Square-Enix No one else. The line is your own. do you buy it? or don't you. That's the only decision you can make. The only line you can draw. Sorry but it's true

We shouldn't even be reading about this stuff till it's all been decided or dealt with legally. And the only reason we'd hear about it then would be if the items in question were sold, and we were supposed to receive a remedy.

Tilandra, your case is different from the one being discussed here. I am talking about this train wreck of a thread that has been posted on more than one site. Yes, it was wrong for what they did.

Yet, What was done here, is equally wrong. Just because DAZ owns the item, it is still a work of Frances' (Fcofill). It still reflect on her integrity because she is the one that created the piece. The fact remains, It's her reputation effected... No one elses...

My point in this whole mess is the fact that you (Generic) will go after DAZ (and don't hand me the line that they are bigger... That's a big bunch of Horse pucky...) but you will allow Rendorsity and RDNA to do the SAME exact thing.

Sorry, you cannot give me a legitmate reason for this whole one-sided mess.

RDNA released a set of clothing that is based on Van Helsing (Not to mention a set for Farscape.) Here you have Louis, Lara Croft and assorted other celebrity morphs and items. Yet no one complained there. We have Qylan hair at Poser Pros... Anyone remember Final Fantasy 8... Quistis' hair style. We have the Gen daughter Freebie... Rinoa's outfit.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander...

Message edited on: 11/27/2004 23:22

LOL. I did buy it. Oh and I bought the pro pack too. I never thought about the game connection. When I was doing the band thing in the 80's, they all dressed like that in the clubs.

First, it's not a DAZ problem, but a generic problem, which can occur in any store (as has been pointed out above). Second, it's not a copyright problem. Copyrights problems are settled by copyright owners with the possible assistance of lawyers. It's just a marketting problem. As Stormrage so acutely puts it : "The line is your own. do you buy it? or don't you. That's the only decision you can make." But, to make a decision, you have to be informed. Or else, you have been mislead, deliberately or not. From what he posted above, it seems the author of the Aiko's outfit was well aware of similarities between his design and the FF character. He and DAZ chose to post a pic that stressed this similarity. It's their choice and I don't see any reason to complain (unless you personally hold the copyright to FF character design that is). But since they were aware of this similarity, I feel they should have put a caveat somewhere in the promo page about possible similarities between the 2. Is that so hard to do ? Of course, it depends on what can be called "similar". When I saw the cat girl in the WIP images, I immediately thought "Hey, it's Felicia !" because I have never seen any other character looking like this, and that the 2 look really similar to me (although I should have not used the term "copycat", which is not quite appropriate here). On the other hand, the authors say they wanted to make a completely different character and that the two don't look at all the same to them, and I don't see any reason to distrust them. But posting links to images of both allows readers of this thread to make their own opinion and decisions. It's all allowing customers to make informed decisions, it's all about customer's respect.

It's only informed if customers are familiar with the originals. I don't play computer games (call me boring, I just call me too busy) so I was totally unaware of any connection or possible copyright issues when I bought it. My concern is this - am I liable for any possible lawsuits by publishing renders made using this outfit on my websites - regardless of whether any reference is made to FF? What if this thread hadn't been posted, or, in my case, pointed out to me by a friend who has 'a poster on my wall wearing the same outfit'. I wouldn't have known.

Gill

       

The clothing is dissimilar enough to allow for no violations Pete

Wanna save yourself from copyright/trademark violations. Create your own textures and or models. Its as simple as that. In the pro world you pretty much would never buy and object and use its supplied textures unless it was a generic object anyway. Such as an old boat. A couch, or a chainsaw. Thats a general rule. I mean how many of you pros use Mike or Victoria and use them strictly as they are. No morphs in otherwords. I havent seen a single add that uses Mike or Victoria that looks like thier default selfs Pete Janak

Hmm, I think I'll creat and market a character named Drive Safely Racer

Hmmmmmmmmm - humour an Englishgirl - what are ""Bongs"" ??? And what are they for?? I'm so curious, I've lost 8 lives already!

Gill

       

Bongs are water pipes used to smoke narcotic substances.

Well thank you kind person :) That explains why I didn't know cuz I'm so sweet and innocent ;~)

Gill

       

sigh

thou and I, my friend, can, in the most flunkey world, make, each of us, one non-flunkey, one hero, if we like: that will be two heroes to begin with. (Carlyle)

Attached Link: http://www.poserpros.com/wiki/PublicWiki/CopyrightsAndEthics

*" *sigh* "* Yeah, me too. Not too awful much in the way of something new, izzit? Maybe next time someone up in Modville ought to just attach the old ByteMeOK thread contents to the tail end and save electrons... it's all the same arguments. BTW - a wee primer on intellectual property is in the link, without all the pontification, bloviation, and the "here, let me tack on my obnoxious grudges to this subject!" type of BS that seems to accompany threads like these. /P

A sigh...isn't that a cutting tool with a long handle that the Grimm Reaper carries? :OP

My worry is being taken to court because of questionable copy rights. Even for the innocent, court/lawyers cost money, not counting jobs lost because of 'copyrights' questions.

Thanks for the link, Penguinisto. Have saved a copy for reference, I really think we should have a list of useful URLs for copyright information. That way anyone with a question can just look it up.

ya know, P, there are days when I just, well, I wanna cry. And I think that's because I just can't get up and slap people around. Damn holidays tapped me. You know damn well I'm dyin to correct, what, 42 horrific errors in the statments above. And this isn't the only thread of late dealing with this same issue. But I just don't have the mental energy today to write the eight or nine pages that are gonna be needed, lol. (Ok, yeah, with me writing them it's 20 or 21, but still...) and Philywebrider -- no, what you're thinking of is the snarky sigh. It's a special form of verbal scythery...

thou and I, my friend, can, in the most flunkey world, make, each of us, one non-flunkey, one hero, if we like: that will be two heroes to begin with. (Carlyle)

I guess I'll say 'sigh-a- nara' ;OP

lol

thou and I, my friend, can, in the most flunkey world, make, each of us, one non-flunkey, one hero, if we like: that will be two heroes to begin with. (Carlyle)

http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?&Form.ShowMessage=2022984 mmm, could there be a relation between this thread and what is said here ?

Look at the top of the copyrights and ethics forum here at renderosity.

thou and I, my friend, can, in the most flunkey world, make, each of us, one non-flunkey, one hero, if we like: that will be two heroes to begin with. (Carlyle)

any reason to make a flame post you all are just foolish why is littlefox upset it isnt like eather item is hers or anything

Grace, she's upset about a concept, not an item. She's mad about the way that many people in the poser community are being acting when it comes to the creative efforts of others. This particular item set her off because it touches close to home for her. She made all of that quite clear in the first post. The issue that has her upset is simple; nothing fancy, nothing evil, nothing petty. Rather than work to create an original concept, or to present what are otherwise nice clothes and such, the creator has taken extra pains to ensure that the item would sell because of it's strong similarities to a commercial character. It was done with intent, it is done for profit, and it may indeed violate trademark and copyright as it is presented. Doing so means that it specifically is considered wrong -- if it wasn't, it wouldn't be against the law. However, knowledge of these greater issues -- the ethics and legality that surround the effort and challenge of being an artist, in the truest sense of the word -- is incredibly rare among those in the poser community. I won't go into why that is, myself. But what she's speaking of is that higher idea, that somewhat nobler concept. It is the post of many others that debased her original statement, turning it into a debate on the merits of a particular product. Interestingly enough, there was an earlier comment that implied that an independent broker was copying the Bratz dolls. It could also have been said that the independent broker was copying the lilz line of images. Or, perhaps, that the lilz line was copying the bratz. Or perhaps all of them are based in a particular style of drawing and imagery that's been used since the mid 70's, adapting it into their own expressive formats. I happen to like the outfit in question. I can, um, recall some clothing similar to it, hee hee, simply by going to my storage shed and digging in a few boxes I keep well hidden and mislabeled. However, I could not use said outfit in any of my commercial work as it is supplied as the apparent risk to me, personally, is too great. Especially if I change the hair a little and fix up the textures on that sword. I do that, I'm either gonna have to post it as fan art or keep it for myself. And if it's going there, I'm not going to pay for it. But there's a large difference between someone who uses all this stuff to earn a buck like me, and someone who finds it wonderfully fun to play with just for their own pure, rather innocent enjoyment. That difference is going to determine the value of it to you, personally, depending on where you fall in those generalizations. but these are the words of a crazy woman, who spends a sizeable chunk of her day filling out forms so that people who steal the pictures made by other people will find themselves learning the hard way about those higher ideas and concepts. The rest of the time, though, I get to play with poser :D

thou and I, my friend, can, in the most flunkey world, make, each of us, one non-flunkey, one hero, if we like: that will be two heroes to begin with. (Carlyle)

This item should be removed from sale! If there is any copyright issue on any item the brokering company/creator has a duty to fully investigate such charges and remove the said item from sale until it has been given the full clear. There is a duty to the consumer! Without going into the nitty-gritty, within international digital copyright there is a clause about look and feel of said item. I think that no more can be said on this item as it is as plain as the nose on your face which side of the law this falls on. There is satire and then there is outright theft. I am shocked that it still remains available for sale to the general public thus involving them in any copyright issue.

"Don't do it with an axe, get a chainsaw"

The creator and the owners of the product are already acting to address the matter

thou and I, my friend, can, in the most flunkey world, make, each of us, one non-flunkey, one hero, if we like: that will be two heroes to begin with. (Carlyle)

Renderosity next?

"The creator and the owners of the product are already acting to address the matter" what you mean Square-Enix???? 8-P

"Don't do it with an axe, get a chainsaw"

cute, but incorrect. They are not the creator nor the owners of that product. They are the creator and owners of a similar product. which, despite my earlier misgivings, I'm going to post about, if I can edit the damn thing into something understandable by the expected readership... hee hee hee

thou and I, my friend, can, in the most flunkey world, make, each of us, one non-flunkey, one hero, if we like: that will be two heroes to begin with. (Carlyle)

cute - yes I rather thought so! I have a rather good understanding of the law. I do however get rather shocked by the amount of times people have to be forwarded to more formal copyright threads to explain. And even more shocked by the poeple who get wrangled in copyright disputes even with a fulltime copyright department. Even still interpretation by different parties always remains open, sometimes bazar. I suppose you can bring a horse to water but you can't make it drink. It seems that legal literature is a bit of a tough bedtime read for most! speaking of which......................................

"Don't do it with an axe, get a chainsaw"

So lets say she changed the pose of the pic...changed the texture colors a bit ... Not so the same outfit then, no? Miss little fox's blacker magic also looks like an ffx2 outfit. How about the Krystal's Black Rose ffx's Lulu comes to mine....or who was the evil queen again in FF8...boy little foxes outfit for v3 The black mage looks ALOT like her. How can Ms Littlefox complain out others maing FF inspired clothing when she does it as well? Afraid of competition? I still say this whole thing is ludicris.. By these same standards koshini should be taken out of stores, the sloop John B. should be removed...they are clothes...you can buy the Paine like outfit as they call it in costume stores and I can guarantee you it is not condoned by square. What about earlier anime using using simular outfits for s&m themes. It is not a trademark, ideas cannot be copyrighted, (neither can places or names even if fictional) Just change the color and the pose of the pic...it is not as if she took the mesh from ffx2 and tweaked it. I'm for copyright, I have fought for mine, but taking it too far will destroy the ability for artists to exist.

Tirjasdyn
http://michellejnorton.com

Not an Evil Queen in FF8... You refer to the Sorceress Edea. The Costume in particular came from the Parade scene in the game. The Crest in particular in LadyLittleFox's Dark Mage. As someone mentioned earlier in this thread, The style of clothing existed in the 1980's with the Hair Bands (Pat Benatar, The Scorpians, etc... come to mind) Therefore, there it is NOT an original idea for Square Enix either.

"It is not a trademark, ideas cannot be copyrighted, (neither can places or names even if fictional) Just change the color and the pose of the pic...it is not as if she took the mesh from ffx2 and tweaked it." Actually, the paine character is trademarked. I just looked it up. Twice, in fact. Fictional places and names can be trademarked if they serve to identify a source of goods or services. And Trademark is specific. It is NOT the outfit that is causing the problem. It is the marketing of that outfit. This isn't about llf's stuff, or france's stuff, or Square's stuff, or sony's stuff, or microsoft's stuff or rendo's stuff. This is about marketing. This is about using familiarity with a particular product in order to sell more by direct association. It's about misappropriation of trademark. Not one merchant against another.

thou and I, my friend, can, in the most flunkey world, make, each of us, one non-flunkey, one hero, if we like: that will be two heroes to begin with. (Carlyle)

Ditto Tirjasdyn. I can think of hundreds if not thousands of items being sold that were "insipred" by other items. I mean really, everybody who makes a piece of clothing is inspired by something/someone...it could be as simple as a suit in a catalog/a house/vehicle etc. Face it, no one is here is a fashion designer/haut coutier, architect. If you were you wouldn't be modeling,you'd be in Europe trying to get your designs realized by some famous designer. Almost ALL the fabrics being sold or used in items are scanned or photgraphed.

A good example, would be that of runway fashions. It's not but a couple weeks after a show that JCPenny/Walmart/Macys-Richs etc is replicating the design, maybe they use lesser quality fabrics/offer it in different colors etc. But when I see it in store, I say OH, Julie Roberts wore that at the Oscars....etc

Most CG graphics I see ALL over the web are inspired by something a movie/game/photo one has scene somewhere.

Message edited on: 11/28/2004 20:11

Yansen - a very honest to the point post you just made, I don't know why we bother - deaf ears and all. Admittedly copyright infringement happens everywhere, on high street fashion and websites selling poser products...............that however does not mean that it is right! Inspiration may be gained from all around but there is a certain time that it goes beyond the point. Within the law there has been many an individual who has been sued over look and feel of an item never mind a blatant copy (not that I am talking of any particular item) the lack of talent in imitating another's work does not allow for the intent. Imitating work for resale is wrong, though imitating for self improvement has some merit.

"Don't do it with an axe, get a chainsaw"

muttering about the loss of time better spent slavishly copying down to the smallest detail that lump of coal... This isn't legal advice. This is legal opinion based on personal experience, knowledge, and work. After much discussion, often heated and always fun, with lawyers, judges, and a few other folks who, like me, spend a chunk of time going after folks who do cute things like trample someone's intellectual property laws, I've come up with some things that generally might be useful as guidance in the process of making decisions. Some of it is based on forward looking considerations based on cases pending currently, but the vast bulk of it is based on established rulings and laws governing the Untied States of America. The reason that these laws, in particular, are of import, is that they are laws of recourse to the folks who broker and purchase through most of the poser sites out there. It doesn't matter if you live in Italy or Brazil or Korea -- for many of the stores, they are based in, operate from, and state in their Terms of service that the laws of record are US based. I'm on record all over the place as saying that copyright doesn't cover likeness. And I will stand by that. Copyright Law, itself, does not. However, in the course of rulings on what many folks consider to be grey areas, the courts have, to some degree, relied on the intent of the laws, using concepts from one area of intellectual property law and applying it to another area in order to reach something we all love: justice. When it comes right down to it, you cannot base your actions entirely on what has gone before, as there are times when what has gone before might not be applicable. However it is still a good guide, and it is the manner in which the law works. I'm not trying to say what should and should not be sold, nor am I posting this out of an interest in influencing that. I'm posting it because, once again, I'm seeing people I like a lot being beaten up for stuff by what, in my crazed opinion, are essentially a bunch of lynch mobs. There are three critical concepts that apply in the issues that have been raised of late surrounding this stuff. These issues are: transformative use, Trade Dress, and Ethical Motives. I'll deal with the ugly one first. Every artist in our business who deals in any sort of work which is essentially an effort to duplicate a popular figure has to address the ethics of doing so themselves. It is not something that can be made, willy nilly, across the board. Profit shouldn't be considered in the process, nor should recognition. Let's face it -- we make this stuff because we think it's just as cool as everyone else. It does inspire us. It might be the challenge or the coolness or even the healthy glow "heh" -- whatever, its why we do it. Ethics aren't a consideration then. Its like a scientist in that respect -- doing something because it must be done. The maker of dynamite never realized what he'd done until someone used it to kill folks. That's why we have a prize named after him and supported by the profits from his work now. Because this is something that can only be made by each individual, there are going to be conflicts -- everyone will tend to feel differently about it. And it is that constant difference that leads to why we have the others; it is the role of what we call civil law to sorta even out the differences in a social sense (sociologically speaking, that is). In this specific case, we have a large, complicated body of law covering the concepts of intellectual property. The things that are most important to note within all of the discussions involved are those called transformative use (conversion of something from one format to another makes it a new creation under copyright) and Trade Dress and trademark in another. Trademark is a body of laws that deals in specifics. Details. But those details are considered -- for the most part -- in sum. Meaning, it is not just the bottle, and it is not just the shape and it is not just the color, but the sum total of all three applied together, as a single, distinctive element, which counts. But trademark goes beyond that, as well. A trade mark is, first and foremost, a mark of trade -- that is, it is a means by which a good or service can be recognized by the public at large. That's a critical distinction -- and trademark law is all about distinctions. In trademark, you can't just whip together a graphical image, call it a character, and then protect it under trademark. You can't. No matter how hard you try. What you have to do though, is give that character a function in which it indicates a source of goods and services. Which means, in simpler terms, that people identify it with what it does. Mr. Clean is an agent of soap. Superman represents the superman line of comics. The enterprise ships represent various shows in the star trek properties. It has to mean the thing it is representing. Given rulings, this gives the underlying nature of trademark law the purpose of preventing exact duplication of a character, or an imitation of the character where the likely result (that's important) is to cause public confusion, mistake, or deception with regard to the source of the goods/services that carry the mark. "Trademark rights may be used to prevent others from using a confusingly similar mark, but not to prevent others from making the same goods or from selling the same goods or services under a clearly different mark." A trademark is, essentially, the same thing as a "brand". While this hasn't always been the case, it has, especially today given rulings in recent years, become slowly the best example that I know of. Likelihood of confusion also doesn't require purchase, in much the same way that other IP theft doesn't require intent or profit. If the manner in which the goods or services are sold is such that it leads the buyer to believe that there may be some connection, or in a manner that might infringe on the rights' owners' ability to profit in the same way, then the line is crossed. So long as potential buyers believe: 1- it is associated with 2- it is sponsored by 3- it is approved by 4- it exploits the market of 5- it damages the reputation of 6- it risks the dissolution of a trademark, it is, essentially, destroying it. And if a trademark is destroyed, it is lost. In the specific cases raised of late, the concept that is causing the problem is related to one called "Trade Dress", which is a total commercial image of a product. It's the way a good or service is marketed. "When Trade Dress Is Protectable Trade dress is governed by the same set of laws that protects unregistered trademarks. Like a traditional trademark, trade dress is a form of commercial shorthand that provides a "source-associating cue" for the unthinking purchaser. However, unlike traditional trademark law that protects words or logos, trade dress law protects the total packaging and design of a product. To be protectable, trade dress must be inherently distinctive or possess "secondary meaning" (the public associates the packaging with a single source). Further, the trade dress must be non-functional. As a rule, for trade dress to be protected, it must be instantaneously identifiable in the mind of the purchaser. This is usually the function of strong sales over a long period, supported by consistent advertising, promotion and publicity. " {Copyright Permission & Libel Handbook (John Wiley & Sons), by Lloyd J. Jassin and Steven C. Schechter} Courts will do an awful lot of thinking when weighing trade dress issues. But, essentially, the key things they will look at are: 1- What would an "unthinking buyer" believe? (and yes, that's the definition -- someone who does not pay attention to details) 2- Does the overall look give said buyer the idea that they might come from the same source? 3- The distinctiveness of the trade dress (in this case the recognizability of the image) 4- The intent for personal gain on the reputation and recognizability of the mark It is these issues -- essentially, marketing issues -- which are at play. Now, Court rulings governing such trade dress issues are rather inconsistent at the appellate level, although under the current supreme level there has been a strong and somewhat rigid consistency in the cases they have decided to hear favoring the overall look. These things are made up of individual details, the sum of which is what is important, not the details themselves. Anyone can go out and copy the clothing worn by the cast always of Gilligans island for poser. They can sell those meshes -- which are a case of transformative use -- as much or as little as they please. But it is when they begin to sell those items in a manner that invokes, in the minds of the customers, the show itself, that they cross the line into profiting from someone else's intellectual property (in this case, Sherwood Schwartz, god love him). It's this habit -- which is rampant among us fanboys and fangirls of these cool shows -- that is creating the troubles that swirl around us. This cloud hovers constantly, and we are right to look at it and wonder when the rains will come. Because they will. Sooner or later some large media company is going to realize the potential profit to be made here. And when they do, they will come in and they will clean house. But that's my crazy opinion. And I'm often told I'm wrong. But I did say a republican would control the white house this year in 1978...

thou and I, my friend, can, in the most flunkey world, make, each of us, one non-flunkey, one hero, if we like: that will be two heroes to begin with. (Carlyle)

yawn

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

Hire a lawyer.

Sue 'em. Sue 'em all.

Wait.....better yet.......give them a fair trial -- in this thread, and then hang them from the nearest Haunted Tree (available in the RR marketplace.) !

---

Z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z............

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

hee heee

thou and I, my friend, can, in the most flunkey world, make, each of us, one non-flunkey, one hero, if we like: that will be two heroes to begin with. (Carlyle)

"It is NOT the outfit that is causing the problem. It is the marketing of that outfit. This isn't about llf's stuff, or france's stuff, or Square's stuff, or sony's stuff, or microsoft's stuff or rendo's stuff. This is about marketing. This is about using familiarity with a particular product in order to sell more by direct association. It's about misappropriation of trademark. Not one merchant against another." Exactly like you said above. But obviously some do not get the point but reduce this issue to some kind of merchant or store bashing what it never was.

Every organisation rests upon a mountain of secrets ~ Julian Assange

"Just change the color and the pose of the pic..." Sure, that's all it takes. Or may be just change part of the outfit. The point is how do I know I have to change the poses if no one told me that there might be a confusion with a well known character ? I'm not a lawyer, but if I buy something, I want to be able to use it without someone telling me "Hey, this is copied on XX game/film !" @ynsaen : "the Untied States of America". Now that's a cute lapsus...

considering the top doesn't even match the outfit there shouldn't be a problem...

Tirjasdyn
http://michellejnorton.com

So it doesn't. And to be a trademark violation, it would have to be identical...

No, not identical. It merely needs to be enough to be readily recognized by an unthinking buyer are the item in question.

thou and I, my friend, can, in the most flunkey world, make, each of us, one non-flunkey, one hero, if we like: that will be two heroes to begin with. (Carlyle)

So, does that mean if I look at it and think "hmmmm...that looks familiar, but I can't quite place it" ...where does that put it? Or how about if it's the situation where it's known only to a "section" of potential buyers and not readily known except to them?

It's that question, precisely, that is why I avoid making a flat out statement of do or do not do this. That's the question that each individual artist is going to have to make for themselves. And the reason I say that is because these matters are decided, usually, not by a jury of peers, but by either a single judge or a panel of them, depending on where they stand in the appeals process. And I say usually, above, only because the DMCA has changed that, since the new distribution provisions of it now make it a criminal offense in certain circumstances. And ya know, I don't have a freaking clue how a judge -- who is typically not going to be terribly familiar with all of this stuff -- is going to rule. Since, in many of these cases, we're dealing with licensed properties, where the owner of the property has a potential to make an income (it's potential, not actuality, that applies) through the same means, I'm inclined to suspect they would rule in favor of the property owner -- but that's my gut feeling. It will also depend on all the other facotrs involved, including things like transformative use and trade dress. So while I might not have a problem with certain distinctive elements, personally, I might have an issue with the collective sum of those elements. By that last bit, let's go back to the gilligan's island example earlier. If we work from the specific assumption that Gilligan is a trademarked character, I would not expect there to be a problem with someone selling a hat, shirt, pants, and shoes similar in color and form to the ones he wore. Even colored the same. Put that same outfit on an skinny, kinda dorky looking guy with a strong resemblance to the actor, drop him on a boat or on an island, and market it that way -- then yeah. There's gonna be an issue. But, at the same time, the creator could choose to market that same item simply by showing only the clothing. No big deal, since that's essentially what is being sold, in truth -- and that's a valid transformative use. It's when those elements are used in confunction with the other elements that make up the body of a trademark that the issue lies. Now you wanna get really freaking wild, let's look at buildings, boat hulls, and bottles...

thou and I, my friend, can, in the most flunkey world, make, each of us, one non-flunkey, one hero, if we like: that will be two heroes to begin with. (Carlyle)

Let's not and say we did, eh? As LLF said, there is no easy solution and it's definately something we as a community and as individual artists need to address.

Does copyright or trademark give Square-Enix the ability to lock up an entire style of clothing such that nothing like it can be made? I can see where the design of the outfit in question resembles the outfit that Paine wears, and I can also see where they differ. I've also seen similar outfits in the punk rock styles of the 80's. I realize that the marketing of the outfit brings out the similarities more than the differences but there are differences. That is part of the question. People have nicely identified the two areas that a court would probably consider germane -- lines of clothing and animated cartoons. In fact, this would make a good law review article, if someone hasn't already done one. I'm not even close to having an answer, though pay me $400,000.00 and take the case through an appeal and I can give you a good idea ... There are two important thoughts: First, what is the company policy -- that will tell you whether or not you invite IP litigation. Is it a Lucas-like "we love to share and create a fan base" or is it a Disney-like "we are already selling something in every niche and would really rather you didn't steal our sales" approach? Winning IP cases isn't always that much fun. Second, what warning should you give the artist about look-a-like issues? In animation this is especially interesting as the "look" often swallows up hordes of characters -- so many of them look almost identical -- and there are often entire genres -- e.g. felicity, sheesh, there is a whole genre of "furries" and literally hundreds of cat characters alone. And ya know, I don't have a freaking clue how a judge -- who is typically not going to be terribly familiar with all of this stuff -- is going to rule. no kidding. The point is how do I know I have to change the poses if no one told me that there might be a confusion with a well known character ? I'm not a lawyer, but if I buy something, I want to be able to use it without someone telling me "Hey, this is copied on XX game/film !" which is important. Anyway, someone needs to write an article for a law review on this point. Would even be good if you wanted to teach IP. But, I can see an advertisement disclaimer: "My take on the female catgirl. This type of character represents a sub-genre with several hundred known characters, the most prominent being [list five cross dressing fanboys], [list fourteen animated characters], [list three comic book characters] and [list six novels]." Or, germane to this point: "This character uses clothing and styles from the 80s, used by [sixty-five animated characters], [fourteen game characters], [twenty-five comic book characters] and others. This particular style is evincing a strong comeback and is a developing area for renders, with several competitors considering or working on their own lines."

Here's my problem with all of this. Why did Lady Littlefox hold up Frances as an example when she herself has done the same thing? Go to www.elfquest.com and you will see the similarities between her work and theirs. When I first saw Koshini, I thought of Elfquest and I even found it interesting that her models had four fingers the same as those characters. How does the saying go about glass houses?