albertdelfosse opened this issue on Feb 19, 2006 ยท 12 posts
albertdelfosse posted Sun, 19 February 2006 at 1:48 PM
SamTherapy posted Sun, 19 February 2006 at 2:31 PM
Substantial re-edit or not, it's still based on copyrighted material which means absolutely not allowed.
Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.
kathym posted Sun, 19 February 2006 at 2:34 PM
How could it be proven, if its so heavily edited? Are there any easily understandable copy-right laws out there concerning the figures & their textures? Seems to me that you need a law degree to make sense of most of the copyrighted materials.
Just enjoying the Vue.
:0)
SamTherapy posted Sun, 19 February 2006 at 2:46 PM
Well, this is really for the copyright forum but the DAZ EULA - and the one here, for that matter - say in so many words that you are allowed to use the textures to make renders with them and that's all, folks. Seems straightforward enough to me.
Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.
arcady posted Sun, 19 February 2006 at 6:48 PM
Attached Link: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sup_01_17.html
Note that 'license agreements' are not always upheld as legally valid. Quite a few of them are in fact, worded in ways or pushed onto the buyer in ways that void them. Which says -nothing- about this specific case, just that one should not presume it is or is not valid. The link is to the American 'federal' copyright laws. It doesn't link to what courts have done with those laws however - which is actually more important that the text of them. For that, try findlaw.com (free but limited), or westlaw.com (which is not free but has every case ruling valid in US courts). But, the more important question should be of ethics. Just ask if it would be right if someone did whatever you're thinking of doing in any given case to something that was yours...Truth has no value without backing by unfounded belief.
Renderosity
Gallery
JenX posted Sun, 19 February 2006 at 7:00 PM
If you want to take only the changes you made, and distribute as an overlay to place on the texture, that should be ok. But, distributing any part of the original texture is a no no
Sitemail | Freestuff | Craftythings | Youtube|
Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it
into a fruit salad.
EnglishBob posted Mon, 20 February 2006 at 4:36 AM
Attached Link: http://www.rtencoder.com/
If you want to encode it against the original texture, so that people need to own that to make your mods work, that should be fine. But Objaction Mover works only with OBJ files - RTE would do the job, however.Phantast posted Mon, 20 February 2006 at 5:32 AM
Possibly it couldn't be proven, but that doesn't stop it being technically an offense.
RawArt posted Mon, 20 February 2006 at 10:05 AM
Firstly, since this was posed as a question, then the answer is "NO" you cannot sell any derivative texture "based" on another texture, no matter how much it is edited. Also, even if it could not be recognized as the original (and I believe in this case it would be easily recognized), no one would really want to buy such a set due to the potential copyright issues it may have. ..and finally, selling anything based on another texture is no way to build a good reputation, and if a copyright complaint comes out of it in the end, then your reputation would be completely shot anyway. So it is always better just to make your own original works. Rawn
albertdelfosse posted Tue, 21 February 2006 at 10:34 AM
Ah ok thanks for the info. I was going to use mover by just changing the file name extensions of the files involved. then after you decode my edited texture just change the ext back to jpg.
EnglishBob posted Tue, 21 February 2006 at 11:03 AM
I'm not clear why you're determined to use Objaction. Apart from operating only on OBJ files, which requires the user to rename the result, it is Windows only; and is for non-commercial use only, should you be thinking of selling. RTE will encode any file, is available for commercial use, and there's a Java version which will work on just about any platform that has a Java installation available for it. Your choice...
albertdelfosse posted Wed, 22 February 2006 at 12:47 PM
oh duh earth to bert. I read the post about rte and it went
right over my head. lol I need to read more slowly instead of skimming thru stuff. I just downloaded the rte encoder/decoder from free stuff.
Message edited on: 02/22/2006 12:49