Please look at this thread and comment http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=12360&Form.ShowMessage=262117

My personally feeling is its going to get to a point where you just can't tell. Since the posette, vicki and other figures have only one way to texture them and everyone is going to put on make up, shadow, hilight etc. in the same spots, it gets real fuzzy. That's kind of like copyrighting the paint scheme of your house based on white and grays. What I would recommend for texture makers is to seriously think about embedding codes in your textures. This isn't fool proof but, if hidden well enough they may get missed at first glance. For example, you could form your name in the complex browns of the skin or even add Digimarc to the texture. Its not a cure all but, if you can show you're little marker in a "stolen" texture, that can go a long ways to proving you're right. Basing a judgement of texture theft based on a render is incredibly inaccurate.

Hehe.. I've already shared my opinions on other threads. I think the moderators are a little too quick to jump to conclusions and it's going to get Renderosity sued. And then there will be no Renderosity. Unforunately... in this particular case... it's damned if you do and damned if you don't. However... both Renderosity and Wendy could be held liable for damages for removing his product if the copyright claim is not proven. Damges would probably be calculated in lost moneys based on the average number of sales with products in the Marketplace in x number of days, where x is the number of days from the time it was removed until the time it is restored or judgement is passed. BUT... at the same token, SKNOX could be held liable is he is found to be in violation. HOWEVER... is JUST the face is copied... that means that OVER 50% of the work was changed considering the size of the image. That could make it a new work. Lots of loopholes in the copyright laws. Depends on the judge you get... or jury if it goes that way. Ack... I'm starting to get flashbacks to college and all those #$%#$ legal books I had to study....

All I can say is, you know what you did, and no one else does. If you DID base it on his texture then change it. If not, don't. In fact, what was mentioned here is correct, I believe the image has been altered so much that it certainly would NOT be copyright infringement even if you DID use his texture as the base for yours. If you didn't base it on his, stand your ground and leave it the way it is. I personally thing people blow the copyright thing WAY out of scale, but then again, I've never had anything stolen so I wouldn't know how it feels. I just know I wouldn't be anal about it like so many people are. Not that I'm saying anyone is being anal in this particular case, but in general, alot of people go WAY out of control over the issue. Don't start any wars over me saying this. It's just my opinion. But... "Greed is one of the seven deadly sins."

But, tbsro, where is the greed on staale's part "if" this was taken from his texture? He offers his for free, allowing people to change them and redistribute them as long as they are NOT sold. So he is not getting anything our of anything, except the satisfaction that people are liking and using his work honorably.

Excuse me, but copyright "similarities" are not based upon absolute percentages, but upon recognition. We recognize faces most readily, so taking someone's face and putting it on another body, even if it is less than 10% of the final pixel count, is still theft. How much do you have to change so that it isn't recognizable? If an average person (what is known as a rational man) can't recognize it, you have probably changed enough... if it still looks like your source or inspiration, you need to spend more time on it. I'm not a lawyer, but I've had to sue to protect my copyrights. Carolly

I said it in the other thread and I say it here. I think the store was correct in removing the item until this is cleared up. They would be failing in their duties if they did not, and I don't believe this person can sue them for anything. If there is a question of copyright infringement and the store doesn't take action they would be in more trouble. The best way to handle these things is to watermark your textures. That way you can prove the texture is yours. Marque

OH BROTHER, ANOTHER COPYRIGHT ATTICT, geesh, just follow your Software Licence Agreement for peats sake!

I'm not saying Staale is being greedy. I can TOTALLY understand people suing over someone taking something that have sold, and turning around and reselling it, and I can VERY MUCH understand people suing over someone taking something that they gave out for free and reselling it as is, I can even understand people suing over someone taking something they offered for free and changing it and reselling it. However what really gets my goat is people who offer something for free then want to charge you for certain uses like commercial. THAT is thre greed I was referring to, but then, that is another thread entirely. The textures in question do look somewhat recognizeable in the shadows and the lips, but I personally don't think they look close enough for the average joe to recognize, especially without close scrutiny. But Staale is definaly the best judge in this case, he knows his texture better than anyone. And of course sknox knows what he did or didn't do. However if I were the judge in this case, presented only with the evidence I've seen so far, I would have to say that the two images do not look similar enough for me to categorically say that this is a clear case of copyright infringement. I guess it's kind of like the trial of a certain ex-football player who has trademarked his name so I won't mention it (LOL). There just wasn't enough HARD evidence (according to the judge and jury, anyway) to convict. Then again, this is ONLY my PERSONAL opinion and I'm glad I don't have to be judge in this case as it is certainly a difficult one.

lOOK, If you make a prop and I want to use it commercialy then since it is your prop youi should be contacted and a deal for compensation should be worked out. It would be wrong to use a persons stuff they made without contacting them for use in a commercial way that includes reselling the props or figures ect. If you have a problem with that and you do not want to abide by the readme file useage agreement then you should consider building it yourself.

People work hard around here you should respect thier wishes when they GIVE YOU something for FREE.