This is something I've been curious about for a while. If pose packs are intending to used as helpful starting points for developing your own poses, to just what degree must the end-user alter the original pose in order to claim the result as being his or her own work? For example, let's say I buy a pose set of various poses of Vicky sitting in a chair. Suppose I like everything about the pose except for the tilt of her neck, and the bend of one of her ankles. If I change these to my liking, am I now the owner of this new pose, able to distribute it as I see fit? I don't want to upset any of the merchants here who sell poses by asking this. I'm just really wondering if there's some kind of official, or unofficial but generally agreed-upon answer to this question. In the example I gave above, I'd be inclined to think that if I only made those small changes, and started distributing the pose, that I would be doing something wrong. I'm guessing most people here would feel that way. But that said, at what point DOES it become ok? It's wierd. I mean, if you really can claim a pose as your own, and anyone who distributes it --or subtle variations of it-- is stealing...I just find that to be an interesting idea. It's like every new figure becomes the Poser equivalent of the wild frontier. The first people to use it, and make and market poses for this figure I guess you could think of as pioneers, staking their claims as they make the figure sit, stand, lay down, whatever. And I, as the late comer, must tread carefully when I set my figures' parameter values, lest I tread too closely to someone's parameter-dial private property. Am I overthinking this issue?

You can use it but you can't distribute it. Basically, if you don't start from scratch you can't sell it otr give it away.

Poses by their very definition is a position that a figure takes for any given situation in real or imagined life. So if we take that as a starting point it seems likely that multiple persons will come up with the same pose for a given situation. So where does that leave us from a copyright point of view and legalities of doing what you suggest, I don't know is the answer but I know someone who might, I'll be back! thefixer, poser coord.

Copyright may apply - but with poses it would hard to enforce I imagine. As thefixer said "it seems likely that multiple persons will come up with the same pose" Same thing may actually be true for lights....

Attached Link: from public domain to commercial

from the readme of this merchant product:

"PUBLIC DOMAIN NOTE:

The enclosed poses were created in Poser from motion capture data from a variety of publicly available sources, including college research sites. To the best of my knowledge, all are in the public domain. In addition, I feel that the amount of work and modification I made to the motion capture files (extensive in many cases) constitutes enough of an original contribution to the work to consider it original. If there is any concern regarding a particular pose or the data used to generate it, please contact me."

There is currently no precedent for copyrighting joint parameters, but I believe it's in everyone's best interest to ask permission from the creator before copying JPs for a new distribution, since it's derivative.

Altering a copyrighted item, no matter how much, is still infringement and well within the rights of the copyright holder to assume possession of that derivative work since it is a violation of the original copyright. Statements such as, "If there is any concern regarding a particular pose or the data used to generate it, please contact me," are not adequate protection. It's not up to the copyright holder to search for every violation to stop each encroachment. If that were a real legal loophole, I could legally sell copies of Star Wars III till LucasFilms finds me and asks me to stop. Then I'll sell copies of the Simpsons till they find out and ask me to stop. Once everybody's told me to stop, I'll start up a new company and do it all over again. Try to imagine how impossible it would be to retain one's copyright if millions of people did the same thing and the copyright holder has to find each and every one of them and politely ask them to stop.

According to Curious Labs ( from about a year ago ) pose data and light placement are not (C)able, but to redistribute what you have not started from the default placement or position IMO is wrong.

If you think about - one sets out to make either a pose set or a light set, - is one going to look at or buy every pose and or light set available to ensure that they haven't "copied" that pose or light placement by accident? As I said, virtually impossible to enforce and prove that it was a copyright infringement. With the above statement I am not condoning the idea of ripping off other's work and redistributing it.....

As odeathoflife stated above, Curious Labs (now e-Frontier) have stated that neither poses nor light sets are copyrightable items, given their nature. Karen Poser and Copyright Mod

interesting, will watch this one

It is my understanding that courts make laws, not Curious Labs. Poses are made up of numerical values for the x, y, z rotations of each element. Looking at each pose as a collection of numerical data, I do not see any reason why they cannot be copyright. Therefore, a pose that is similar may not violate a copyright if the majority of its numerical values are different, but if enough of the numerical values are identical to cause reasonable doubt, then you might be in trouble if someone really wants to protect their poses. I think it would be naive and uncouth to suggest it acceptable to base products, or free items, on other's work. And, suggesting that poses cannot be copyright would suggest that other products, like settings to acquire characters, could not be either, as these are the same type of files. I don't think there is any doubt that people can and will create similar poses, but you should never start from another's work. :)

Actually capsces You 'Liscense' this software from the maker. 'THEY' own the rights, and have said that lights and poses are inherant to the software and not to the specific character. Thus your inital statement is in error. Courts make laws- but 'CL' et el: OWNS the software and liscense.

Oh cool ... then I could take the lights within poser and the poses for the P5 and P6 people and zip them up and make them available for free to those who don't own Poser? I mean, if I can't copyright my pose sets then CL can't copyright their poses either :P

Maybe I can even put DAZ' poses into freestuff ... just wonder how long it would take until they'd give me a good beating for doing that. And rightfully they'd do so!

Message edited on: 11/07/2005 18:13

"Looking at each pose as a collection of numerical data, I do not see any reason why they cannot be copyright."

According to U.S. copyright law, you can not copyright data.

As far as the license goes - that would be subject to court interpretation. The only reason it's stood as CL has stated it currently is that noone has taken it to court. It's debateable whether files external to the program containing data (in which pose, light and other such data is stored) would be covered by such a license, regardless of whether or not one used the program to help create them - I would not think so. It would be like MS owning the copyright on all documents you create with Word for example. If someone took a license like this to court I don't think it would hold up. This addresses only the stated claim that CL/EF somehow can arbitrate the copyright status of these files - I don't think they can. It does not address the actual creator's copyright relationship to the files which is another matter.

Honestly I think many of the "products" sold in the Poser world are on very shaky grounds re. the licenses they're distributed under and copyright - just my opinion, I know it doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

Message edited on: 11/07/2005 18:33

I know morphs and such can be squished/encoded to allow legal distribution; is there any way to do this with poses? If so, that way only someone who owns the original set would be able to use the modified ones. Note: I'm not condoning possibly questionable practices here, just being curious. If an encoding method for pose data exists and one has obtained all necessary permissions, why wouldn't it be okay?

Geogress, I know that e-frontier owns the software, but they do not own the content me and other's create for use with the software, so I do not see how they can dictate whether something I own can be copyright. If it can be shown in a court of law that there are aspects of a pose that can be copyright, then I seriously doubt e-frontier would be the deciding factor. However, I don't want to argure law. I simply wanted to express my opinion. I don't think it appropriate to create poses using those of others, and I don't think anyone should suggest it is legally correct to do so. :) I'm not going to dispute you unzipped, as I am not adept at law, but does your comments about data mean that software programs cannot be copyright? What constitutes data? Don't take me wrong. I actually don't know the answer, and am hoping you or someone can provide it. ;)

I imagine such a system could work Byrdie, though it might become complicated if someone used poses from multiple sets and merchants.

Because the "poses" in Poser are dial turnings. Inherant to the software. And can't be transfered to any other software as a poseable function, only as static props. Thats the data involved and the use of the data. The pose 'itself' can't be copyrighted because nothing can be copyrighted that existed before what is it, 1927 or something like that. And there is NO pose that hasn't been made by the human species.

"And can't be transfered to any other software as a poseable function, only as static props."

Poser poses are not limited to Poser anymore, you don't even need Poser anymore to use a Poser pose. You can install them to DAZ|Studio and use them there in their native Poser .pz2 format. So much for inherant to the Poser software.

"Because the "poses" in Poser are dial turnings. Inherant to the software. And can't be transfered to any other software as a poseable function, only as static props. Thats the data involved and the use of the data." I can open the pose files up in any data editor, I can read them into any program I wish to create and use the data, even another program that does some sort of "posing" and can use the data contained therein to do said posing. That some other application initially created them has no bearing on this - the end result is simply a file full of data. The file format may be (and that is specious itself) subject to copyright. The data is not copyrightable as an extension of the program copyright or determination of the makers of the program that created it regardless of how it was created. That is indeed the jurisdiction of your locale's copyright law and judicial system - not the software company.

Puntomaus, you could do exactly that.

There is no way anyone could copyright a pose set, a light set, or a character morph that has been made just by spinning the default morph dials.

The creator only holds the copyright of the SET, i.e. the "packaging" that goes along with it, like the wording of the ReadMe and promotional pictures, but not the actual raw data of the poses.

A sitting pose is a sitting pose is a sitting pose.
There is no way a judge could positevely decide which of two identical sitting poses is the "original" and which one is the "copy".

It wouldnt be "nice" to sell someone elses pose set, but it would be perfectly legal.

Think of it like this: You can own the copyright of a story, but you cant own a copyright of the words the story was made of.

And in Poser; poses, lights, and morphs are the "words" that create the "story", the final Render.

stahlratte

bookmarked cause i think i can look at a pose and recreate it exctly without opening it in note pad

True- but to use them in Daz studio daz had to use Posers properitery method to bend the figures. (to be Poser compatable) Most apps use I think whats called 'weight mapping' 3dsmax, maya ect.... Poser's is a TOTALLY differnt method exclusive to Poser. And you can bet Daz payed for the rights to use it, or at the least got permission. And if permission isn't required then it is a freeware/open source method. So in all ways Posers owners are still the exclusive decider that they can't be owned.

There is nothing to stop someone from applying a pose (even if it was somehow squished, compressed, or otherwise encrypted), and then saving it as a new pose. you can't copyright a pose anymore than you can copyright pi (the number, ya know 3.14159...)

OK, I'm still not convinced. The dials are inherent to the software. The collection of settings to attain a particular pose are not. Using Word as an example, it is a collection of data that makes it function as a program. A pose file is a collection of data that makes a character take on a particular pose. Of course, I understand that a human pose can't be copyright, but we aren't talking about a human pose. We are talking about a representaion of a human pose based on numerical values. Shadow Dancer, I do not think you can replicate a pose from an image, and the values contained in the Poser file be the same. Poser uses decimal values in its poses. If you can replicate those by view, I would be amazed, but I'm willing to see the results. ;)

capsces, I think what Shadow Dancer is getting at is that you can look at a pose and very closely approximate that pose just by twisting dials, sure you won't get it to the exact decimal point but it will look basically the same. So where would you draw the line? If we were to go down this path would it get to the stage where no one could release a pose of a girl figure sitting cross legged just because DAZ released that pose with either Laura or Maddie for fear of litigation. Next it would be - did Daz copy that idea from somewhere else - on and on it goes. If the truth be known my Daughter probally owns the copyright on sitting cross legged on the floor - because she used to do it some 19 years ago....:) Oh but then she only did that because she saw one of her friends doing it..... See where this is going?

and ive been sitting crosslegged "indian style " 38 years does that mean i own copywrite to it or do the indians ;) and yes that exactly what i mean i can closly resemble any pose as anyone can if they try

The reason a pose is not copyrightable is because copyright law does not cover "program settings". It is as simple as that. The files that make up the pose have no context outside of Poser (& now DAZStudio). One does not look at the PZ2 file and think of it as art - it must be applied (in Poser or D|S) to particularly rigged 3D figures before it becomes artistic expression. Up until it is applied - it is simply a list of values for joint dials in a posing application. For the record, although DAZ disputes this, joint parameters also fall into this category. While meshes and textures have artistic context outside the Poser application - joint parameters do not. They are simply settings telling Poser how to deform a mesh when a joint is rotated in certian ways. That is, it is a "functional aspect" of the 3D figure - not an artistic expression. As such - they are not covered by copyright (though they ARE covered by EULA's should you have agreed to one for the figures in question). In other words - no Poses (& Joint Parameters) are not covered by copyright BUT copying & distributing them is still against the law if the EULA you agreed to when purchasing / installing the figures states that you may not do so (which is generally every EULA I have ever read). --EK

50% of whats written in EULAs is illegal or unenforceable anyway, so I wont write what I think of them in mixed company. ;-) (Another example: While E-Frontiers EULA says you cant resell Poser on ebay, its perfectly legal here in Europe to do so. The simple fact is that for goods bought in Europe European consumer law superseeds any EULAs a US company has dreamed up. Its that simple.) I hope that the latest SONY/rootkit desaster will finally put an end to this nonsense and bring back some fairness for the consumer. Sorry, but DAZ happily sells VWs, Ferraris, Austins and other copyright protected meshes without license and you think they would stand a chance suing someone because they think his pose sets or joint settings were too close to their own ? I was thinking of modifying NEA so she could wear V3 clothing, but there is already Steph I MAX out there who can do this, and making a NEA/V3 hybrid was easier anyway. Do you really think DAZ would have been able to sue me if I would have copied V3s JPs to do so ? Even IF that part of the EULA would be valid, how will you proof that I ever agreed to it ? That I ever actually downloaded V3 and installed her, and not came up with the joints by myself just by matching NEA to one of Vickys free clothings ? Theres a lot of tough talking going on in Poserland, but I yet have to seem someone back it up with actions. stahlratte

I think I've already pointed out that we are not talking about human poses by default. I have not implied that one cannot produce a close approximation of a Poser pose by looking at it. I have said that it is highly unlikely the data inside a Poser pose file be replicated via viewing an image. I believe it would be very unlikely that this be accomplished in any manner except use of the original pose file. I've been sitting cross legged for many years too, but I haven't done so in a Poser scene. ;) I don't care if people create poses that look similar to mine. I fully expect that people will create poses that are similar to mine or those of others. If you went into Poser and twisted several dials, I would probably not even be able to tell it was originally my pose and would likely not care. I certainly have no intention of purchasing all the poses out there to see if they are based on mine. I don't even look for these things. But, when I accidentally run across someone selling poses that are so little changed that I can overlay my own render on their promo ads, that is just lazy and blatant thievery. Essentially, only a judge can tell me that person has not violated my rights. I'm not going to say, take my poses, move an element or two and resell them. This is not fair to customers who already purchased my poses and may end up with poses that are virtually the same without realizing it until later, or feel cheated if the person selling the modified poses does so cheaper (since they didn't really have to do any work). It seems a vendor would not want to alienate customers by selling them something they already have, or face a mud slinging should it become public knowlege they are selling another's poses. I don't see any good reason we should not walk down this path. If Curious Labs can declare that poses cannot be copyright, then a lot of Poser products are not protected, as the majority of Poser files are based on the same type of settings. So, in your opinion, can morphs be copyright?

Frankly the way I see it, if you're stupid enough to pay for Poses you get what you pay for. You're giving money to someone else to create things that Poser was made so you can create them yourself. I'll pay for textures, clothes and hair because you can't use Poser to create those. But Pose sets? Come on! That's what the software is for!

Stahlratte: I wasn't making any comment on the validity of EULA's. My point is that having agreed to one - you are subject to a different set of laws (i.e. contract rather than copyright) where they are concerned. Personally, I would put money on most EULA's being unenforceable in one area or another. The only thing they tend to have going for them in that area is that the people that they pursue for breaking them tend to break the enforceable sections (such as copying & distribution). Capsces: Actually - yes. Morphs are copyrightable as they are a derivative of a copyrightable object (meshes are copyrightable). --EK

@EK : Glad we agree (more or less) ;-)

@caspsces: I dont know, I really dont know.
I DO believe that a character that was made by just spinning the default morph dials is NOT copyrightable, as again, given enough talent and time, two individuals could come to identical results.

Characters that were created from custom morphs might be different, but then again, given enough time, I could copy a morph just by looking at a picture, as you can see by my "GIRL fo NEA" morph:

Not perfectly identical, but close maybe enough so that some people might not buy the DAZ Girl if they could have this morph for free instead.
The mesh itself is 100% different from the Girl, but still the shape is the same.

Just to show that things are not THAT black and white regarding ANY morphs, too.
Even a custom shape or morph can be hard or impossible to be copyrighted.

stahlratte

Do you really think DAZ would have been able to sue me if I would have copied V3s JPs to do so ?

I was going to leave this alone, but there appear to be quite a few people reading this thread and they could be influenced by someone such as Stahlratte making this statement.

Firstly, yes - they would be able to sue you. And trust me - the Sixus1 Media / Lilin2 incident proves that they will do this. It is obvious from the fact that you could make the NEA-V3 hybrid that you have agreed to the EULA.

Whatever you do folks - when it comes to dealing with things like this, get proper legal advice. DAZ have lawyers inhouse for this kind of thing. And companies with inhouse lawyers are a little more trigger-happy with litigation (for good or ill, they need to pay the guys after all).

--EK P.S. For the record - the fact that a morph was made from a picture & not a mesh comparison does not remove "copyright" from the equation. Although, the maker of the image would be the copyright holder in question. If GIRL were a trademark however (as DAZ have done with V3) - a whole new set of laws kicks in. Message edited on: 11/08/2005 00:07

Sorry, but I think they wouldnt stand a chance. EK, this is exactly the "tough talking" Im speaking of. Got any evidence to back it up ? Just because Sixus caved in to avoid a mud slinging doesnt mean they DAZ would have been able to convince a judge. As I said, how will you proof that I didnt come up with the JPs by myself ? (Or just copying them from Steph I MAX which is still freely available ? ) Whats next ? I learned that Anton Kisiel doesnt allow to distribute ApolloMax actual mesh in any shape or form, NOT EVEN ENCODED. This of course makes creating and distributing any hybrids or remapps based on ApolloMax impossible. What if DAZ and e-frontier suddenly decide that this is a great idea, and change their EULAs ? This would make Netherworks, AprilYSH, Nacissus, mine, and other works suddenly illegal ? Those who sit in glasshouses should be carefull throwing stones. Alot in Poserdom is possible because its under the radar or just not worthwhile to make a big fuzz of it. stahlratte

Oh, massive confusion. ;) A morph is simply data that tells Poser where to move the mesh points. At least that is my understanding. As such, without the obj and Poser, it is sort of useless data. According to some here, data cannot be copyright. To add to this, I create morphs with magnets, but again some responses indicate one cannot copyright magnet settings, as they are simply data and program specific. I guess if we keep thinking about it, we will figure out that an obj file is useless data until it is put in a program capable of reading it. And, the program is useless data until it is put on a computer capable of running it. OK, I must stop. I am starting to confuse myself. ;) I guess this would be a moot point if vendors did not create all this useless, expressionless data. ;) To the original post, if your are going to sell or distribute your poses, just spend a little more time and create them from scratch, then there is no question (at least in your mind). ;) I hope I have not aggrevated anyone too much with my point of view. :)

Got any evidence to back it up ?

You will have to be a little more specific as to what I need to backup, but yes - everything I have mentioned here can be backed up either by reviewing the statute in question or by looking at case law. I am happy to provide references, just as I did to DAZ when they tried convincing me that Joint Parameters are copyrightable.

Just because Sixus caved in to avoid a mud slinging doesnt mean they DAZ would have been able to convince a judge.

I agree. But that is not something I am arguing - I simply said they COULD SUE, not that they would win. In practice, one need not be right to win in the litigation game - simply have the money to withstand a lengthy lawsuit. I doubt many people frequenting Rendo have the money to go toe-to-toe with DAZ in the courtroom for long (regardless on the merits of the case).

As I said, how will you proof that I didnt come up with the JPs by myself ?

Actually, that would be easy. Just as in the Lilin2 case - compare the two. If they are exactly the same - that is enough proof to convince most judges. If they are not, then it would depend on the level of similarity...

(Or just copying them from Steph I MAX which is still freely available ? )

Mind sending me a link? I have heard of - but have never obtained said product. The fact that DAZ has not clamped down on it suggests to me that it is in someway encoded against V3 but as I said - I am not sure on that.

If it is encoded - this means you have installed V3 & are hence bound by the terms of the EULA.

I learned that Anton Kisiel doesnt allow to distribute ApolloMax actual mesh in any shape or form, NOT EVEN ENCODED.

This is his choice. Personally, I see it as a balance between control of the product and how flexible you are with others making extensions. Given that it is his product - I see absolutely nothing wrong with this.

What if DAZ and e-frontier suddenly decide that this is a great idea, and change their EULAs ?

This would have no affect on you. You did not agree to the changed contract and as such will only be bound by the contract you originally agreed to. so your products are just fine - it only means that people that agree to the new EULA cannot do as you have done.

Those who sit in glasshouses should be carefull throwing stones.
I agree completely. However, it does not bode well to throw rocks at the bear even if he is in your backyard. In other words - just because something is 'right' does not mean it is 'wise'. I made very sure of my facts before talking to DAZ about the copyrightability of joint parameters. Why? Because they are a big company and I am not - they can afford a lawsuit and (at the time) I couldn't.

NOTE: I am not supporting DAZ here. Firstly, I have had legal advice stating that Joint Parameters & Poses are not copyrightable. To feel confident talking about it - I had my advisor explain to me why with references to case law on the topic. As such - I agree with Stahlratte on that.

However, when you agree to an EULA - you become bound by the contract (so long as the terms are legal in your part of the world). Part of the most EULA's I have seen (including DAZ's) state that you cannot copy & distribute the product. As such, you are bound to that agreement.

--EK

Quote - So if we take that as a starting point it seems likely that multiple persons will come up with...

I have bought poses, and free poses of all kinds. I can go through the bought ones and the free ones and come up with many examples of near identical poses.

If you are redistributing someone's files... that's wrong. However, if you create the pose yourself from scratch using photos as reference like most pose creators do, then you are fine.

From what I've seen posted in other threads, those who create poses use various magazines and ads to draw their "inspiration" from.

Message edited on: 11/08/2005 02:28

somehow i think we wandered off topic here i know that i can look at a picture weather its a photo or a painting or any other media and recreate the pose there in i have done it from a photo to poser so it can be done joint parmeters didnt have anything to do with it it can be done and frankly to get right down to it all poser ppl start in "default" pose so theres youre starting point in reality

Message edited on: 11/08/2005 02:45

Look at it like this: I have distributed a set of hand poses for Vicky which were all made from scratch. If you believe that these are copyrightable, then I own the copyright. But one of these has every joint set to zero. Do I have copyright on that? Suppose that one pose puts a 10 degree bend on each figure joint - do I have copyright on that? Because someone else could easily derive the same thing without knowledge of my pose set. Similarly with lights. Suppose I release a light set with no lights in it. Do have copyright on total darkness? Suppose I have a light set with one spotlight in it. Do I now have rights over every lighting rig that has one light with these settings (which could easily be duplicated)? It all makes a nonsense. Yet a while back, a prominent member of the Poser community was banned from this site for distributing a light set that differed only marginally from one that was being sold commercially. His position was that a light set could not be subject to copyright, therefore he was not infringing copyright. I'm inclined to agree, because the other way lies madness.

"P.S. For the record - the fact that a morph was made from a picture & not a mesh comparison does not remove "copyright" from the equation."

If a person can't look at a picture and recreate it (for some purpose), then how did AMD get away with legally reverse-engineering Intel's processor? The courts determined looking at what something did and figuring out how to do each function by "going backwards" was legal. So, wouldn't copying a pose (from a picture) be even less of a copyright infringement? And if so, wouldn't reverse-engineering a morph [edit] be legal?

Message edited on: 11/08/2005 07:52

In practice, one need not be right to win in the litigation game - simply have the money to withstand a lengthy lawsuit. I doubt many people frequenting Rendo have the money to go toe-to-toe with DAZ in the courtroom for long (regardless on the merits of the case). We could argue copyright issues all day, but if you're even thinking about "stealing" a pose, remember the paragraph above. If you were caught, do you have the financial resources to defend against a lawsuit from someone like DAZ? We're talking about the entire legal process, from hiring a lawyer to appearing in court and so on. Long before the case even comes close to being settled, you may have to pay $2,000 or $5,000 or $10,000 just for an attorney to repond to DAZ's court filings. Do you have that kind of money? Or more importantly, is this really how you want to spend $10,000 of your money? What else may happen in the case? Could DAZ subpoena the entire contents of your hard drive so they can look for supporting proof? Do you really want the court to see ALL of your personal files... from your resume to anything you may have downloaded, including MP3 files and fairy pictures from Renderosity which, to an un-trained judge, look like nude children with wings. Suddenly your "stealing a pose" case turns into multiple copyright violations and possible charges of child porn. You know it's not and I know it's not, but now you have to convince a judge that doesn't know the difference between a photo and a rendered image. And, of course, this means you have to spend more money on an attorney. So, don't steal poses! :) --John

Chuck: Chip design is an area of law covered by "patents", not copyright. Different laws, different rights & obligations. JHoagland: You have my message spot on. If you are going to do somoething that companies such as DAZ would like you not to - you had better be sure that you know what you are doing. I am not a lawyer - taking my advice is not a good idea. For all YOU know, I'm making it up on the fly! One the biggest problems with lititgation is that it is a game you can really only play if you have money. --EK

Thanks, EK... I suppose that is true. From a cynical point of view, though freedoms are touted in the US, one doesn't have as much as one is reminded of when you realize the United States is founded upon the Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules" and since most politians are "bought and paid for" by campaign donations and PACs, their ([edit]corporate)interests--as compared to the interest of the common citizen--are served first. Hence the situation where someone who is (probably) right will not take a chance on their "day in court" when faced with "money muscle". We only need examples like how so many local, state and federal agencies looked the other way when gas prices were gouged and oil companies made record profits during what was a catastrophe to so many. Or look at the OJ Simpson trial.

Message edited on: 11/08/2005 15:38

So, don't steal poses! :) Better Yet! Don't buy them either! Use the program the way it was meant to be used and pose the figures yourself.

all sounds to me like money hungry bs mine mine mine mine give me a break i can prove something tangable as a texture is mine but a pose please that be like me saying , i did a picture "poser" of a guy and a girl kissing it took 3 days to get it so they were actually kissing and not intersecting now it take 3 seconds for person to kiss so since i made that pose can i say no one is allowed to kiss anymore LOL give me a break poses are poser immating life its not tanngable its not a created piece of art therefore cant be copywritten would i take someones poses and resell em no but thats not copywrite it ETHICS big diffrence

Phantast, using your example, I would have to say that the Zero pose IS inherent to the program, as there is a button in the Joint Editor that specifically zero's the pose. There are no single buttons in Poser for creating a pose. I do not feel that a single rotation can be copyright, but a collection that produces certain results, I am still not sure about, and would require a judge to tell me that they cannot be. Regardless, I feel John's advice is best. Just don't steal another's stuff to create your products. Whether it is legal or not, it isn't nice, and could be more trouble than it is worth. :)

Berne Copyright Convention Under a convention of the Law called the Berne Copyright Convention, all creative works are copywritten the moment they're in a tangible form. Tangible form means almost anything other than in your head. Simply dreaming of the world's greatest Web site isn't enough to protect your ideas by Copyright. But once it's in a material form, it's protected. This means that, regardless of whether or not you see a Copyright noticed affixed to a newspaper, Web page, piece of fine artit's most likely Copyright material, if it's original. However, many people have never heard of the Berne Copyright Convention. And many people, for some strange reason, fail to respect that most Web site material is Copyright protected, unless they see an explicit Copyright notice (and even then some people don't care). It's to your advantage to place a formal Copyright notice somewhere on your Web siteor on every page. You may not prevent people from stealing your work, but it may deter some people, it makes some people stop and think about whether they really want to "borrow" your material, and it can help you out in case you decide to press charges against someone for Copyright infringement.

Crikey, After this discussion I am a bit afaraid to release a light set with my next product, for fear of someone jumping up and down and saying "My lights were just like that"

S/N ratio here is 1 to 80