Just to let everyone know, Turbo Squid is removing all products that have any similarities to real-world vehicles made by Lockheed, Cessna, and Bell Helicopter, irregardless of the name of the digital product.
I don't sell any products with the brand names of "Lockheed", "Cessna", or "Bell Helicopter", but one of my products does have a likeness to one of their real-world vehicles.

Here is a copy of the notice I received today, regarding the issue:

---

Christell Gause
Support    
2007-07-05 5:34:05 PM CDT -- Lockheed Take-down
I am writing you this letter to inform you have infringed upon a pre-existing takedown notification from Lockheed regarding your submission of the following product(s) on the Turbo Squid system:

[existing product, which was uploaded and approved for sale in 2004]

Pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, I am notifying you of our decision to remove the product(s) listed above to comply with the pre-existing resolution.

[Information on how to reply to the claim]

We have suppressed these models. We are in the process of removing all Lockheed, Cessna, and Bell Helicopter models from our site. If you wish to dispute the claim we must hear from you within 7 calendar days.

Very Truly Yours,
Designated Agent
Turbo Squid, Inc.

VanishingPoint... Advanced 3D Modeling Solutions

Attached Link: http://www.turbosquid.com/FullPreview/Index.cfm/ID/181967

are they gonna crack down on the starwars models, too (if any)? I noticed the basketballs are now more reasonable in price.

I assume that the for-sale Star Wars items will only be removed when Lucas serves them the same takedown notice as Lockheed.
But, I only know about the notice from Lockheed.

VanishingPoint... Advanced 3D Modeling Solutions

I get stitches in my sides everytime someone mentions "Turbo Squid" and "Basketballs" in the same sentence!  LOL   I can't believe that people actually pay $150.00 for a single basketball model!!!! :blink:

"It is good to see ourselves as others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to say." - Ghandi

Quote - I assume that the for-sale Star Wars items will only be removed when Lucas serves them the same takedown notice as Lockheed.
But, I only know about the notice from Lockheed.

Did Lockheed do that because the items were for sale or is that their policy for all items that are "fan art" even free stuff?

"It is good to see ourselves as others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to say." - Ghandi

Lockheed doesn't even exist any more, does it?   Wasn't it swallowed up by Boeing?

As far as I'm concerned they can take all models from TurboSquid and close the place down completely. All that merchants do is rip off people at that place, asking $35 and even $100 for a model that costs $8.50 at other places. I've always wondered how merchants can even justify selling at that place, I don't buy any items at all from merchants that do sell items there. But that's just my opinion.....

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 have the same opinion. I see a lot of Poser rips on that site. The price gouging is insane and people actually waste their money on those models. I guess when you have money to burn, shop Squid. I have a feeling merchants aren't setting their prices, Squid is. The merchants will only get a cut, a small cut, that's probably why the prices are so high. Thats just my guess, mind you.

Daz is almost just as pricey as Squid, if you ask me. You join the PC to get the models at a 1.99 but you still have to pay a small fortune for being a PC member yearly. When you come down to it, these sites make their money by selling products, they give the merchants a cut and nothing more.

CP does the samething etc. Squid maybe a bit pricey on tag but when you add it all up all the Poser sites are just as high as Squid in a roundabout way. Just that Squid doesnt cover a club PC price or a special passport price.

People think they get good deals at CP & Daz but really, you aren't, you're paying more than you would if you bought the same model at Squid without shelling extra for joining a club or  pay a  membership fee. Im not defending Squid, just stating my opinion.

Ill add I dont go there for the most part.

Attached Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin

*Wasn't it swallowed up by Boeing? *Sort off ish - Wikipedia explains it well. 

A lot of the Lockheed-Martin UCAV's at last years Farnbrough show had Boeing engines. 

Pinky - you left the lens cap of your mind on again.

Merchants still have the choice to sell their items there or not. If TurboSquid chooses to pay the merchant a very low rate then the merchant can always say no.

I'm in the games business and have been for years. If I'm presented with a contract by a publisher that only offers me 10%-25% from the profits made, I kindly thank them for the offer and I'll try to negotiate a better deal. If they stick to the low rate, I take my game elsewhere. Why should someone get 90%-75% and hardly do any work for it? I don't think so.... I do have a choice and so does a merchant selling at TurboSquid. After all there are other place you can sell your items at.

As for Poser items, I agree, most of the stuff us higly overrated and not worth the price asked for. I'm not a member anywhere, except at PoserWorld, they offer items for prices the way it should be. I only buy items at sales, I wouldn't even think about paying the full price asked.

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

Lockheed Martin is still alive and well. My husband works for them here in Fort Worth and has for the last 28 years. 

Lockheed, like many large companies, contracts many things out.

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

Wonder if they will be free now?

*Wonder if they will be free now?
*Obviously I can't speak for other people who sell at the 'squid, but the VP Executive heli won't be a freebie. Thats still happily on sale at VP, Cornucopia and Content Paradise.

Pinky - you left the lens cap of your mind on again.

Maybe someone can explain to me how an artistic 3D model of an airplane can be an infingement? If you sell it under the name and brand of the product  and/or used copyrighted markings on the model, I can see it (even if I don't really agree with it). However, if you offer a generic jetliner that looks a lot like a certain model, how can that be copyrighted?

I know a lot of 3D modelers use basic blueprints for objects like this, maybe that's part of the problem. But even if I use photo references, I don't understand how that would be infringement. Does this mean that if I sold photographs or paintings of Lockheed aircraft it would be considered an infingement?

I think what is happeneing here is bullying by a big corporation, knowing that 99% of the people they issue these orders to won't have the money to challenge them in court. Look at the case by the University of Alabama against painter Daniel Moore for his football paintings. He has promised to fight not only for himself but for the rights of artists in general. Most people don't have the money or desire to do anything but comply.

' I think what is happeneing here is bullying by a big corporation'

I agree with that completely. It's certainly difficult to see how a 3d representation of something causes any injury whatsoever to the company who developed the actual aircraft. As a 3d modeler myself, I consider any physical object in the world a fit subject for modeling and am dismayed to think that any large corporation would seek to restrict that.

I haven't heard any details on why these companies have chosen to do this but I'd be interested in their rationale.

• Rick

To make a relation here - you do realize that all of those scale car models (including toys) you can get at your local hobby shop are licensed from the auto manufacturers!  Some time back the auto industry forced the model makers to require licensing before they could make a scale representation for sale.  Some model makers still release models without - and are usually taken to court.  Apart from logos and other trademarks, I don't know what this falls under exactly.  It may still be trademark or copyright of, if anything, the design and specifications.

So Lockheed is just doing the same thing - and might attempt to force such a licensing scheme on anyone who wishes to sell 3D representations of their 'products'.  How this might impact the CG movie industry is unknown.  Most likely, the film studios bring in the lawyers to make sure that any such use of an object is covered and licensed from the manufacturer twenty times in a stack of paper six feet high.

The entire thing does get ridiculous when one contemplates it.  Here's Lockheed, making billions and getting Federal government contracts (guess where the government gets its funds - hmmm) and they are squashing a few people making probably, oh my, a couple thousand dollars selling 3D model representations without direct trademark infringements (logos and names and such).  Once again, big business making a point to go out of its way to step on an anthill.

Just remember - UniversalCorp, OCP, Zorg, et al.  There are safeguards, but we never left the 19th century industrial revolution big-business mentality.  Now you might have a union, the boss might not send an army to squash a strike, and governments generally try to limit the greediness of large corporations, but that doesn't mean that acquisition, zealousness, and abject hatred of the consumer (the people that they think owe them) don't still exist (M$, Sony, RIAA, MPAA, and on and on).

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

 -- Bjarne Stroustrup

Contact Me | Kuroyume's DevelopmentZone

Not the 1st time either. The same thing happened a while ago when some aircraft companies tried bullying plastic model companies. While that was resolved, theres one thing here thats often forgotten with military models. 

The taxpayer pays the government who pays mega-corp to build these things. Who then gives and leases them to some dodgy foreign government who then turns them against us! So who really owns it ? 

Pinky - you left the lens cap of your mind on again.

I don't see this as bullying at all. If people around here make a piece of art and someone else makies copies those and sells them, everyone cries 'copyright infrigement', my art is stolen and so on.

Yet, we don't have a problem with merchants 'stealing' designs from car, plane and so on manufactors and selling those models.... if the people who own the copyrights to the design start doing something about protecting their designs, we all start calling, it's unfair, their bullies and so on.

These companies have every right to decide what happens to their design. They can allow us to 3D model them, they can forbid us, it's their choice, since they've designed the whole thing in the first place and if you want to remodel it, you at least could have asked their permission to do so.

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

Just a quick note Lockheed Martin and Boing are both still seperate companies (I have one son working for Lockheed and on working for Boeing), however the two companies have a number of collaborations in the areospace field. Can;t comment on th take down notice tho. Personally I see it as aeikema, Lockheed made the products in question and hold patents on them, that, to me, makes it thier right to allow or disallow 3D models based on those patented products.

mike

As mrsparky notes, this may hold for commercial designs but what about military ones (and others, say, NASA)?  At least in the US, all military objects actually belong to me (and all Americans).  We foot the bill, the government contracts out, and the companies build them.  Considering that I paid for these designs and the government cannot rightfully (and I say that knowing full well what the government does otherwise) withhold that information on any grounds.  Their current ideology is to use 'top secret' status to protect against designs falling into 'enemy hands'.  To quote one of my favorite human beings ever, Benjamin Franklin:

The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.

We are slowly slipping from a Democratic Republic into something else.  That never happened before, did it?  I'll just ROME around and contemplate that...  ;D  Rome wasn't a Democracy - just a Republic - but they did have a sort of President (the Consul).  But the Consul was also the head of the Senate and therefore combined the presidential:vice-presidential powers we know today.  We all know that the first Caesars started as Consul and then took dictatorial powers - Julius and Augustus (Octavius or Octavian).  The first was assassinated by Senators, the second became the first official Emporer of Rome which would continue for another five hundred years.

Ideally, every bit of information in the Federal government is supposed to be open to public scrutiny - even the prototypical death weapons.  Governments that build weapons in secret are bad governments - and they all do it and ours is no better.

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

 -- Bjarne Stroustrup

Contact Me | Kuroyume's DevelopmentZone

Lockheed, Boeing et al own every trademark, patent, etc available for models they create. The governmnet or whoever tells them :this what we would like in the plane" and they go and make a model. If it's not up to specs they do it again. 

Although tax money is used, even the government can not turn around and sell the plane or model of it.  They own the plane created with THEIR specs not the actual prototype

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

the scale model producers have the same problem  lockheed and boeing just want a percntage
from the sale of a model .

and this is a problem why? They spend sometimes years creating a model. IMHO, they have every right to take a percentage if they give permission for use

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

Quote - These companies have every right to decide what happens to their design. They can allow us to 3D model them, they can forbid us, it's their choice, since they've designed the whole thing in the first place and if you want to remodel it, you at least could have asked their permission to do so.

I agree... The designs of their products are something they have spent millions or billions on developing, and they have every right to control and protect their use/misuse. Note that the reason that these merchants are able to sell their 3d models in the first place is because of the design itself. eg they cant just put a plank on a brick and call it a fighter plane. No one would buy that. It's the design that sells the mesh. So you can understand if Lockheed get a bit pissed if the merchant copies or bases the design on one they have copyright of.

And it's not just a case of the money. It is also a case of setting a bad precedent and that the spread of their design can hurt them in more then just financial ways.

eg say i buy a plane of theirs from Squid and then proceed to do a charming little render of it slamming into various buildings around the world. Or a youtube video of my girlfriend using their planes in less then wholesome ways.

Anyone really think that a serious company wants that kind of crap attached to their name ?

*but what about military ones.. *Those are the ones I mean - and I'm with you about the way we're heading away from democratic societys.  Living in Britain you see these little freedoms being eroded every day, mostty for the benefit of a few companies. 

edited to add 
*Anyone really think that a serious company wants that kind of crap attached to their name ?*somehow I don't think the average bad guy really cares about the coporate image of Lockheed :)  

Pinky - you left the lens cap of your mind on again.

Companies like Lockheed aren't spending their money trying to make the coolest designs- their research and development is all about how to make the best, fastest, most powerful, and most effecient machine for their clients. In many cases, the client is the US government.

I can understand how a company like Porsche would want to copyright or trademark a distinctive look of it's car, but does this same idea apply to the look of an F-22 fighter?

And taking that extension further, did Michael Bay have to license the design of the F-22 from Lockheed when he used actual F-22 fighters in Transformers? Or was he safe since he used fighter jets that were owned by the US government? Would his use of blowing them up "disparage" the F-22, which is the common complaint against allowing people to make their own models.

Did he have to get a license from Lockheed for Industrial Light and Magic to do their special effects work to transform Starscream into an F-22?
Though, in all likelihood, the F-22/ Starscream is probably covered under the license between Hasbo, the toy maker, and Lockheed.

Of course, this raises another point: how many licenses does Hasbro have in its "Transformers" line of toys? I know a lot of the later toys were officially licensed by GM and Chevrolet, but what about the earliest toys? Did Hasbro get licenses for a Transformer that turned into an an airplane that was obviously an F-15 or a car that was obviously a Porsche?
Or was Hasbro safe because this was 20 years before companies realized they could issue cease & desist orders to anyone making models that looked like their products.
So, is this where digital products are heading? Will digital model-makers need licenses just like Hasbro and Hot Wheels and Matchbox?

VanishingPoint... Advanced 3D Modeling Solutions

Wow. We were just talking about this on the Prod Showcase forum like about one week ago.

'It's the design that sells the mesh. So you can understand if Lockheed get a bit pissed if the merchant copies or bases the design on one they have copyright of.'

It's already been pointed out that their 'design' has already been paid for by the US taxpayer and we don't even have to go into the aspects of collusion between defense contractors and the government in the first place that ensures that they are always well compensated for their designs.

'The entire thing does get ridiculous when one contemplates it.  Here's Lockheed, making billions and getting Federal government contracts (guess where the government gets its funds - hmmm) and they are squashing a few people making probably, oh my, a couple thousand dollars selling 3D model representations without direct trademark infringements (logos and names and such).  Once again, big business making a point to go out of its way to step on an anthill.'

That sums the whole situation up nicely for me.

• Rick

"Companies like Lockheed aren't spending their money trying to make the coolest designs- their research and development is all about how to make the best, fastest, most powerful, and most effecient machine for their clients. In many cases, the client is the US government."
That's a completely wrong perception. Lockheed and other military aircraft designers do spent time in having their model look cool. They always have, it's part of their appeal. They spent much time on making sure the plane isn't only efficient, but also looks good. So, according to your own statement, that gives them the right to copyright it also.

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 couldn't afford anything on Turbosquid anyway.  I could never figure out why their models are so expensive.  Do they really sell anything there?  I mean $150 for a basketball?  Come on what gives.  Does anyone know why they're so expensive?  Thanks.
Adrian

ask the staff there. they jack prices up... I know one trueSpacer that wanted to put stuff on for free or about $5 each. a week later 'Squid informed him the price was going up. He asked them not to and was told bluntly, sell at the prices they told him or leave.

The prototype of many Lockheed planes is being sold all over the world. What is added, removed, modified etc is what makes it different. I know of several countries who own the F16 but it is modified. The government bought their version of modifications like the other countries bought theirs.

The prototype is still copyrighted, patented and tradmarked by Lockheed. After all the work that they put into that prototype they have every right to copyright and patent it and if they choose to, to go after anyone who should not be copying it.  No different than any of the merchants in Poser  or other 3D apps who spend months on their models.  No one can "legally" copy those either. The only difference is companies like Lockheed and Boeing have the money to protect their interests. Maybe that's the raw nerve here

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

Instead of arguing what ought to be allowed and how things ought to work, below is information from the US government's copyright website. I'm not a copyright lawyer, but the definition I read of "Useful Articles" seems to exclude a military jet unless parts of that jet contains "pictorial, graphic, or sculptural authorship that can be identified separately from the utilitarian aspects of an object". 

It may be worth the time to query the copyright office over Lockheed's actions because the general shape of a military jet is utilitarian in nature and not intrinsically artistic. It would be hard for Lockheed to claim that the specific shape of their jets are artistic in nature and not built that way strictly for the purpose of achieving technical objectives. If the copyright office replies with a favorable written interpretation, that letter could be forwarded to TurboSquid to fight these actions.

Copyright Registration for Works of the Visual Arts
www.copyright.gov/circs/circ40.html
Useful Articles
A “useful article” is an article having an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information. Examples are clothing, furniture, machinery, dinnerware, and lighting fixtures. An article that is normally part of a useful article may itself be a useful article, for example, an ornamental wheel cover on a vehicle.

Copyright does not protect the mechanical or utilitarian aspects of such works of craftsmanship. It may, however, protect any pictorial, graphic, or sculptural authorship that can be identified separately from the utilitarian aspects of an object. Thus, a useful article may have both copyrightable and uncopyrightable features. For example, a carving on the back of a chair or a floral relief design on silver flatware could be protected by copyright, but the design of the chair or flatware itself could not.

Some designs of useful articles may qualify for protection under the federal patent law. For further information, contact the Patent and Trademark Office at Commissioner of Patents & Trademarks, U S Patent & Trademark Office, P O Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 or via the Internet at www. uspto.gov. The telephone number is (800) 786-9199 and the tty number is (571) 272-9950. The automated information line is (571) 272-1000.

Copyright in a work that portrays a useful article extends only to the artistic expression of the author of the pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work. It does not extend to the design of the article that is portrayed. For example, a drawing or photograph of an automobile or a dress design may be copyrighted, but that does not give the artist or photographer the exclusive right to make automobiles or dresses of the same design.

In a 1983 case, the "Copyright
Office had refused registration of a claim
to copyright in plaintiff's automobile wheel
cover design on the grounds that it was a useful
article which did not contain separable
sculptural features which could be considered
a copyrightable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural
work.
http://www.copyright.gov/reports/annual/archive/ar-1983.pdf

What Works Are Protected
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html

Copyright protects “original works of authorship” that are fixed in a tangible form of expression. The fixation need not be directly perceptible so long as it may be communicated with the aid of a machine or device. Copyrightable works include the following categories:

1. literary works;
2. musical works, including any accompanying words
3. dramatic works, including any accompanying music
4. pantomimes and choreographic works
5. pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works
6. motion pictures and other audiovisual works
7. sound recordings
8. architectural works

These categories should be viewed broadly. For example, computer programs and most “compilations” may be registered as “literary works”; maps and architectural plans may be registered as “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works.”

My visual indexes of Poser content are at http://www.sharecg.com/pf/rgagnon

'The only difference is companies like Lockheed and Boeing have the money to protect their interests. Maybe that's the raw nerve here'

No, what grinds my gears is that if Lockheed and Boing were offering 3d models of their products for sale then I could see them getting their panties into a twist over someone offering competing products.

They are not making such models and have no plans to do so. It would be unrealistic for someone like John to license the right to use these designs so the end result is that these military models will not be available to anyone anywhere for any price.

And why should this be so? Haven't they glutted themselves enough on government dollars? A single cost overun on a single military aircraft results in billions of dollars so It's amazing that they would have concerned themselves with this in any way.

It's outrageous.

Quote - the scale model producers have the same problem  lockheed and boeing just want a percntage
from the sale of a model .

 

From what I've read, its not that they want a percentage, they want a fixed fee plus a percentage. The fixed fees are in the six figures (at least), which may be acceptable for Mattel who might make 100,000 units of Barbies M1A2Sep, but turn out to be prohibitive for plastic model makers, wargame miniatures companies, and places like turbo-squid. From what I understand, a good run on a plastic model might be 10,000. I spent a fair amount of time trying to find a Stryker model, and couldn't.

This is why nearly all the Abrams models are M1A1s, the F-16s are A and B models etc.

In the past, the munitions companies, as well as the car companies, viewed plastic models as free advertising (either for the newest models, or at least for brand recognition.)

Not to get into the argument of "is our government going the wrong way" since I have my opinions of that as does everyone else, but believe the ONLY answer is to study the candidates for public office AND vote for the ones with the correct (at least in your opinion) views. 

However, I can say that both the Ari Force and Lockheed had input into the Tranformers movie with respect to the F-22. Without knowing details I do know that Lockheed's security services were involved in filming the Raptor scenes along with the Air Force security.

Oh, and one more point, just because the govenment (and by extention the American public)
buys the aircraft, landcraft and seacraft, from a company, doesn;t give them (or the public) any more rights to the patented equiptment that goes into the creation of that craft, than buying a Chevy or Ford gives you rights to the patented equiptment that goes into the creation of that auto. Or to bring it closer, buying an item from the marketplace here doesn;t give you the right to ignore the copyrights of the creator of that item. The government is a BUY with the rights and responcibilities thereof.

mike

Two different 'buying' terms here.  Lockheed didn't construct the items and then sell them to the US government (using taxpayers dollars).  Lockheed was contracted by the government to construct utilitarian items used by governmental agencies (using taxpayer dollars) - which are supposed to be public and open not private and closed.  This is more akin to me going to someone and contracting them to build me a 3D model for pay with stipulations of full disclosure - not me going out and buying a Boeing 777. ;)

Chevrolet and Ford build items and sell them to consumers while retaining all rights and patents.  This is private enterprise.  Lockheed et al are building aircraft and spacecraft under contract for the US government - this is public enterprise.  All that we have to do is stop Congress from passing annual governmental agency funding and Lockheed (et al) would have to earn profits solely from commercial private enterprise.  Do you think they'd renig on some of this hot air ballooning if that occured?

I could see this type of action if the 3D models were accurate in every detail - that might be too much.  But I doubt that even gross details are retained in these models - only the 'look & feel' which is what I suspect they are playing at since no logos, trademarks, or names are used.

My personal view is that the corporations are going a bit overboard (sarcastically stated) with this anal-retentive retention of every possible aspect of their products.  Soon enough, if not already, just using a photograph, painting, or looking at it will cost money.  Next they'll find a way to charge  you for water - oops, already done that.  Protecting designs that can be used to a company's advantage is expected - don't want to just give away a new engine design.  But this isn't about competitive designs is it?

Next thing you know we'll have Germany (or some Neo-Nazi organization) suing every maker of models of Tiger-Panther tanks, Kubelwagens, 88mm guns, the kettle helmet, and Swastika.  Where will it stop?  If you take my photograph, since I own my likeness, you need to pay me an undisclosed sum for any commerical use (in a newspaper, magazine, brochure, book) because you now have my likeness which I can trademark.  Greed is not good.

:shakes head in shame of humans:

Robert

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

 -- Bjarne Stroustrup

Contact Me | Kuroyume's DevelopmentZone

There is the world of difference between infringing an aircraft manufacturer's patent rights and simply creating a 3D software model, the sole purpose of which is to help in the creation of images.   There are some very good-looking 3D models out there, but , if you're wanting to emulate Lockheed's technology, a model from Turbosquid isn't going to help you very much (although, at those prices, perhaps it ought to).

Seriously copying an aeroplane needs an actual aeroplane, or, at the very least, its detailed plans, and the external appearance of the thing is the least of it.   After all, that's a tricky thing to keep secret, when the aeroplane is screaming around the countryside, scaring the sheep and burning up taxes.

Allegedly, the Russians copied a B29 from the ground up, when it made an emergency landing in the Far East in 1945.   They let the plane re-fuel and take off again, but not until they had measured and photographed every last molecule of the thing, inside and out.   Then they set up a production line that worked in feet and inches, so that they could build one.   That's the kind of detail you need to make a serious copy of an aeroplane.  

The idea that the aircraft manufacturers are seriously helping to protect their secrets by pursuing the likes of Turbosquid is plain daft.   It smacks of corporate arrogance, greed and a legal department with too much time on its hands.

Well, here's my last say on the subject, mostly because I agree that it's a bit pointless exercise and, as a modeller I resent so I've been presenting these arguments more as a "devil's advocate" than anything else. Still there is one finale argument, Somewhere down the line the underworked legal department got a US judge to agree with their arguments and issue the orde to remove the modelsgiving it the weight of law, right or wrong. As I said concerning the wayt to change the direction of government (and I FREVERANTLY HOPE everyone will use the power of their vote to show the government who the work for, a good start has been made, but it's not over yet : end of advertisement) ther is really only one way to fight this. Get some money together, hire a laywer and fight the rulling in court! If you relaly disagree then challenge the action. I'll contribute to the legal fund (not much I'm poor, but some andyway!).

'nuff said
mike

One last statement from me as well.  I agree with the licensing fees for use of such items in movies as it makes sense.  Studios may invest millions but they expect to make millions in profits - lawyers and licensing aren't exactly detrimental here.  But we're talking about someone making a few hundred dollars on the off chance of a sale.  Going a bit further though, it is possible that a CG studio guy might purchase said item for use in a movie - but then I'd think that the lawyers would show up anyway doing their lawyer things.
Here's a hint to the people making these 3D 'knockoff' models: introduce slight variances as well as similar (but not exact) names and logos.  Note the variances for your legal defense.  Why?  Because if it isn't the same you can make proprietary claims and avoid legal issues.  I mention this because I play guitar.  Guitars are 'copied' quite often - especially in Japan where you can get something like a Fenda Stratacasta which looks almost identical to the Fender Stratocaster except in the name and slight design variances.  This is considered legal as it is not an exact duplicate and the makers do not make claims to be the original.  Of course, laws vary from nation to nation so how far this can be taken and to what extent the variances are must be considered. :)

phaneuf's enough,
Robert

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

 -- Bjarne Stroustrup

Contact Me | Kuroyume's DevelopmentZone

Fair enough:  I realise that this is getting a bit repetitive;  everyone who didn't previously understand the meaning of the word "catalepsy" may well be getting there by now...  

On the other hand, kuroyume0161's last post  (not catalepsy-inducing) missed the point by a country mile - and then the rest.   If there's an American guitar called a "GenderBender", or whatever, and a Japanese guitar-maker produces a "GendaBenda", I'd say that the US manufacturer does have a potential case (this works just as well, the other way around, I should point out, where the Japanese company is the aggrieved party).    Where the "knock-off" tends not to be pursued, of course, is where the "knock-off" is actually as good as, even better than, the original..   That's never going to happen in the case of Turbosquid models, or any equivalents.   Nobody who has been allotted a zillion squid to buy helicopter gunships is going to be stupid enough to think that what is on sale at Turbosquid is the genuine article.   Well, maybe some of Mugabe's cronies, but no-one else.

A few more issues:

In regards to movies:
Companies (such as Chevy and Lockheed) can get millions of dollars' worth in advertising. Just look at the Chevy/ Transformers commercials on TV. In this case, Chevy could work a deal with the movies studio and neither would have to pay the other any licensing fees.

The "it's different" defense:
Yes, I could spend all day saying how my helicopter was built using an Airwolf plastic model and the "Airwolf Flight Manual". I'll freely admit that I've never taken any measurements from an actual helicopter, nor have I even stepped in a helicopter to research building a 3d model.
So, yes, obviously, my models are not exact replicas of the real world item. Are they close enough for digital artists' use? Absolutely.

Actually, in some cases, the models are slightly "wrong" so they can work in a specific program. Does a real Blackhawk Helicopter have "body parts"? Of course not, but you need them on a Poser figure file so the parts will move.

Plus, does anyone really expect a digital model to include every single nut and bolt from the real vehicle? Can anyone accurately model (and texture) the interior of an F-22 aircraft when it's probably classified as Top Secret?

However, using this defense means that you have to take the case far enough to actually use a defence. Lockheed, like all corporations, can easily out-spend any person before the case even gets put on a court docket (if a court will even hear the case).

So, even though I never claim that my models are perfectly exact replicas, can I afford the $10,000 or $20,000 (for example) to hire a lawyer and file a legal defense? Can TurboSquid afford to do this?
Do anyone of us want to put up with the stress of fighting a legal battle over the sake of some digital models? Yes, there's the principle of the issue, but still.

Anyway, it wasn't my intention to start a debate on whether Lockheed can or can not copyright the design of their aircraft. Maybe they can't own a copyright since the design of an aircraft is for the US government or maybe they can since they put their time and enery into research and development.

I posted the message to let everyone know that Lockheed had filed a takedown notice at TurboSquid. Will they come after other sites? Will other companies do the same thing? Will we finally see a crackdown on all "looks like" products?
And will the 3d industry become like the plastic model industry, where any "looks like" product must be officially licensed and royalties must be paid to the original company?

VanishingPoint... Advanced 3D Modeling Solutions

Recent thread:
Subject: Now for sale: Ferrari F-40
[ http://market.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?message_id=3004630&ebot_calc_page#message_3004630

](http://market.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?message_id=3004630&ebot_calc_page#message_3004630)Spooky!

Maybe the Lockheed CEO hang out of Rosity and reads our threads!!!

Quote - There is the world of difference between infringing an aircraft manufacturer's patent rights and simply creating a 3D software model, the sole purpose of which is to help in the creation of images. 

 

I thought the sole pupose was to profit from those 3dmodels..in this case profit from someone elses IP.

Lockheed has been at this for several months now(there's a thread at cgtalk about Military-meshes.com receiving a C&D)..& I fully expect other big companies to turn there eye on the internet..there's way too many content creators who are profiting from other peoples designs & it cant go on forever,

so if you've had a C&D because you've been selling someone elses designs..all I can say is.. tough titties :P..make something original instead :-),or talk with Lockheeds marketing dpt about licensing said IP,they might even offer a license that's more in-line with the profits you'd expect to make

Cg Society Portfolio

well, I suppose when the model price started approaching the the actual plane's price...;)

The Basketball was $150? dang, I remember when it was only $99...;)

I wish I'd said that.. The Staircase Wit

anahl nathrak uth vas betude doth yel dyenvey..;)

well, I suppose when the model price started approaching the the actual plane's price...;)

The Basketball was $150? dang, I remember when it was only $99...;)

I wish I'd said that.. The Staircase Wit

anahl nathrak uth vas betude doth yel dyenvey..;)

Attached Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations

Even though I work for Boeing, I have an idea why Lockheed is asking for removal of said models. It is because of ITAR- International Traffic in Arms Regulations, which classifies how defense related designs, products, and serevices are to be exported. The issue here is that military aircraft designs are controlled by ITAR, and a 3D model is representational of a design. An export is when an ITAR controlled item is brought outside the U.S., when transferred to a foreigner within the U.S., when trasnsferred to a U.S. citizen working for a foreign company in the U.S. By selling a 3D model of an ITAR controlled item on the internet, this constitutes an export. The U.S. State Department has a "blacklist" of restricted contries for trade of defense related items. Someone in a blacklisted country could procure the 3D model and reverse-engineer it, and it could compromise national security. As for commercial aircraft, most are controlled by EAR- Export Administration Regulations. EAR regulations are less stricter than ITAR, although some countries such as Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lybia, and Cuba are still blacklisted. The purpose of EAR is to prevent industrial sabotage, which costs the U.S. billions in lost revenue every year. I hope this helps.

I only model my own stuff so I own the copy rights to all my meshes :)

 

A lawyer will charge you up to $3000.00 to get ya copy right for ya.

You can get it ya self for $20.00.

 

RorrKonn
http://www.Atomic-3D.com

============================================================ 

The Artist that will fight for decades to conquer their media.
Even if you never know their name ,your know their Art.
Dark Sphere Mage Vengeance

I dont see the fuss. It's only a 3D model, used for art rendering. Whatelse can you really do with them?

Quote - Even though I work for Boeing, I have an idea why Lockheed is asking for removal of said models. It is because of ITAR- International Traffic in Arms Regulations, which classifies how defense related designs, products, and serevices are to be exported. The issue here is that military aircraft designs are controlled by ITAR, and a 3D model is representational of a design. An export is when an ITAR controlled item is brought outside the U.S., when transferred to a foreigner within the U.S., when trasnsferred to a U.S. citizen working for a foreign company in the U.S. By selling a 3D model of an ITAR controlled item on the internet, this constitutes an export. The U.S. State Department has a "blacklist" of restricted contries for trade of defense related items. Someone in a blacklisted country could procure the 3D model and reverse-engineer it, and it could compromise national security. As for commercial aircraft, most are controlled by EAR- Export Administration Regulations. EAR regulations are less stricter than ITAR, although some countries such as Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lybia, and Cuba are still blacklisted.

If there are licensed plastic model kits, it seems unlikely that this would have any practical affect.
If somebody want serious information on military hardware, they'd get hold of the relevant Jane's guide.

Quote - Fair enough:  I realise that this is getting a bit repetitive;  everyone who didn't previously understand the meaning of the word "catalepsy" may well be getting there by now...  

On the other hand, kuroyume0161's last post  (not catalepsy-inducing) missed the point by a country mile - and then the rest.   If there's an American guitar called a "GenderBender", or whatever, and a Japanese guitar-maker produces a "GendaBenda", I'd say that the US manufacturer does have a potential case (this works just as well, the other way around, I should point out, where the Japanese company is the aggrieved party).    Where the "knock-off" tends not to be pursued, of course, is where the "knock-off" is actually as good as, even better than, the original..   That's never going to happen in the case of Turbosquid models, or any equivalents.   Nobody who has been allotted a zillion squid to buy helicopter gunships is going to be stupid enough to think that what is on sale at Turbosquid is the genuine article.   Well, maybe some of Mugabe's cronies, but no-one else.

Knockoffs are actually more legitable than 3D representations - which is my point.  Only recently have Gibson and Fender started trying to pursue legal trademark protection of their designs - it only took 50+ years (guitarists are way too laid-back).  And they are indeed going after the 'as good as or better' companies (like PRS).

I'm sure that the 3D representations will be targetted eventually as well.  This is all good mega-corp business - snuff out the puny competitors and then charge an arm, leg, first-born for licensing with strict limitations and lots of lawyers and paperwork.

This is the problem.  The law is blind - ridiculously blind.  It is analogous to the 18 y/o dating a 17 y/o and being charged with 'sex with a minor' (and so on).  Laws are black and white and need to be very wide swaths of grey at times.  I can see going after other large companies profitting from a company's designs - I can't see going after a child who downloaded a few songs online like she was the CEO of Enron or suing a poor hard-working Korean couple for millions because of a pair of pants - get it...yet?

Link

Link

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

 -- Bjarne Stroustrup

Contact Me | Kuroyume's DevelopmentZone

Attached Link: http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/aboutus/site_terms.html#copyright

Nruddock, I agree about Jane's to an extent. Certain items such as advanced electronics/avionics/jamming devices are mentioned in trade publications, but their functionality and technology is covered by ITAR since it involves data crucial to national security. As for plastic models, I'm curious to see what may happen, since CMM (Coordinate Measuring Machine) machines are becoming more economical. One could, theoretically, trace the curves and datum lines of an aircraft, scale it, and make a mesh, which could be ran through CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) for aerodynamic analysis. A competing company or country can use this data to produce an aircraft comparable to the plastic model. As for Lockheed, I'm not sure what is their intent for the C&D. It could be a reputation thing, it could be for economic reasons. Since I don't work for Lockheed, I can't answer for them. As for Boeing, I'm not aware of any C&D letters, but I found this at the Boeing Corporate website: Trademarks and Service Marks Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, McDonnell, Douglas, North American Aviation, their distinctive airplane liveries, logos and product markings, and the products and services described in this Site (except those belonging to Boeing suppliers or licensors), are among the trademarks, service marks or registered trademarks owned by Boeing, and may not be copied, imitated or used, in whole or in part, without the prior written permission of Boeing. In addition, all page headers, custom graphics, button icons, and scripts are service marks, trademarks, and/or trade dress owned by Boeing, and may not be copied, imitated, or used, in whole or in part, without the prior written permission of Boeing. All other trademarks, registered trademarks, product names and company names or logos mentioned herein are the property of their respective owners, and may not be copied, imitated or used, in whole or in part without the prior written permission of such respective owners. Any request for grant of a license to use Boeing marks is subject to prior approval, and should be addressed to the Boeing Trademark Management Group at: trademarks@boeing.com.

Well here's your problem, if you made model which resembles their product and given away for free, they are probably not going to say anything about it. But if you actually sell them for commercial purpose (which is the keyword) without informing them first or made a contract with them regarding its designes, sooner or later you will be served with a court order.

I've seen lots of free firearms models in the freebies section and they look exactly like Heckler & Koch firearms, it's been there for years and so far they have not been taken down due to manufacturer's complaint.

Looks like I'm back although I have much better things to do... :(

GhostWolf: That's the entire point.  If you like, go ask Lockheed how much they want you to pay to license the use of one of their designs in a 3D model.  I'll guess it at $100,000 per anum (or some similar per-usage scheme).  Yeah, I can afford that.  As noted, most of the plastic scale model companies can barely afford that.

Again - black and white.  A small individual business needs to plonk out just as much as some major corporation or movie studio - there are no advantages or levels.  Either the enterprise dries up (no more 3D models except of trees and horses) or some major corporation steps in to fill the gap (wonderful) and charges major corporation prices.  It is a win-win-win situation for Lockheed and a lose-lose-lose-lose situation for these 3D modelers.  And they don't even get public government money.... Sad, sad, sad.

The Bell UH1 is a prime example of a major problem.  It is associated with several wars - Korea and Vietnam to name two.  With a restriction on selling quality 3D representations, only bankrolls can afford to use them in any related way - or every CG person wanting to use one in a render or animation will have to model it him/her self.  I'm sorry, what security breach is caused by a representation of a 50 y/o helicopter again?

I suggest that any 3D modeler that works for or is contracted out by companies like Lockheed start charging hundreds of thousands of dollars for their work - trademark your individual modeling technique and request a license for the contractual use of it! ;P

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

 -- Bjarne Stroustrup

Contact Me | Kuroyume's DevelopmentZone

@Starkdog
The good CFD software is also protected by the same regulations.
Plastic models just won't give anything beyond the rough shape, no information about the materials used, no information about the computer controlled dohickies that adjust the wing shape.
I suspect these companies have taken note of the merchandiing revenues achieved by film tie-ins (i.e StarWars) and are dreaming big $$$ (or at least enough to cover the lawyer bills for doing so).

@kuroyume0161
Lawmakers always try to write (and represent) laws as black and white, they rarely succeed.
When they do, it almost always results in injustices like the one you used as an example.
People are quite capable of dealing with grey areas, but it's always difficult to write down a method for handling them (e.g. the T.O.S. here)

What's so funny is that israel modified our superb tank the centurion so many diff way's, and even some yank tank's but no one complained.
If you look at F14 AND F15 they were based on our fighter jet even first full metalic in certain areas, though we gave up advanced jet aircraft desgn in the 50's, so thier having a laugh banning 3d model's of thier stuff.
Soon someone will say hold on they can bad a 3d model of thier plane infringes copyright but thier planes killed our men women, children and baby's.
So if thier not carefull they my find people taking them to court because of what thier military planes did, and what this comes down to is america is panaking even the goverment, as in 9 years china will be the world's greatest super power.
That's the rub the american companies are panaking as chinese science are comming up with superb military invention's, so look for more american companie's banning 3d stuff soon.
It's getting a joke and id love to see what lockheed will do if a chinese modeler makes 3d planes of thiers and are sold on a chinese web site, i can imagine the chinese quaking in thier boot's at some american company threaten them.

The essential, defining characteristic of a successful corporation is articulated in Fred Saberhagen's Berserker series. We are prey.

M

With you there Mickma.

Modelling or texturing anything from the real world will infringe someones copyright or trademark, even the smallest detail like the design of a dustbin or piece of graffit. 

Also most of these hassles don't come directly from the companys either, but from lawyers who've got bored chasing ambulances. Even if you comply these lawyers will often keep on hoping to make a few quick bucks. 

If you infringe a major companys - you get a C&D, your hosting co gets some grief and you have to pull stuff or be closed down. But if that company infringes you - then you have no chance because  they know you can't afford the legal fees.

You can't post a photo of the effiel tower here, because of this Lockheed thing will they pull photos of aircraft from here, or close down places like airliners.net ?

Overall it's all very silly and mostly related to greed and thats why I think the whole issue of copyrights needs to be looked at again by those who make the rules,  both to protect the IP holder and to allow things such as a greater level of fair use by artists etc etc.  

Increasing pressure on those that "infringe" doesn't work either it just forces things underground and that only makes things like warez more prevelant.

Pinky - you left the lens cap of your mind on again.

It would be foolish to glorify warez, which are for the most part the product of less than admirable ends, but a good deal of the subversion of intellectual property, and corporate property generally, is driven by a simple cultural dogma which I happen to share. The idea of property is a necessary evil that our culture has deified.

M

Quote - Someone in a blacklisted country could procure the 3D model and reverse-engineer it, and it could compromise national security.

This made my morning. Just the thought that any or our 3d models could be a threat to national security is hilarious. Thanks. :)

I mean, really- does anyone actually believe that a country like Iran could purchase my Blackhawk Helicopter model and figure out how the real helicopter works? All they would have is a shell- my model doesn't even include an engine!

Plus, if blacklisted countries want to see what US vehicles look like, all they have to do is turn on CNN or Al-Jazeera. The better-off countries may even be able to pick up the Military Channel on their satellite TV's. lol

VanishingPoint... Advanced 3D Modeling Solutions

*I suggest that any 3D modeler that works for or is contracted out by companies like Lockheed start charging hundreds of thousands of dollars for their work - trademark your individual modeling technique and request a license for the contractual use of it! ;P

*Nice idea, but it wouldn't work.   The contract would stipulate that Lockheed (or whichever other company) owned the intellectual rights to everything that was associated with the contract.  

H&K, I've always assumed, is based in Germany, but it was owned by BAE (formerly British Aerospace) and I am not sure if it is still.   H&K's in-house superior submachine-gun is what you will see in numbers at British airports, or around the Houses of Parliament.   When the British Army adopted the SA-80 automatic rifle and wished it hadn't, it was H&K which was invited to turn the rifle into a decent weapon.   The second version is reputed to be a vastly superior firearm (better than the standard US Army rifle, actually), but the point here is that it really doesn't look that different from the hopeless first version.    Knowing what the thing looks like gives you no indication of the changes that H&K made.   I think that that pretty well summarises what I have been saying here. 

True.  Contractual agreements are the key (again with the lawyers - those sharks!).  When I wrote some plugins for a stage production company two years ago, they stipulated that they wanted the source with the plugins and documentation - no problem from me - but I stipulated that I didn't want any restrictions on code reuse for other commercial (or non) endeavors.  Mutual benefit and no strings attached (no NDAs either - yay!). :)

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

 -- Bjarne Stroustrup

Contact Me | Kuroyume's DevelopmentZone

Just a quick thought... any bit of hardware developed by a major corporation in the past, what - 15 years(?) already has an existing, super-accurate 3D mesh: the one they used to actually produce the hardware.

So, who knows? Maybe Lockheed-Martin has decided they can make some extra $$ by stripping out most of the interior details, and Poserizing their meshes?

Could happen! :)

(Yeah, right)

if they made a 3d model of a SA80 based on a company wireframe the barrel would have worse bends than Vikis elbows :)

Pinky - you left the lens cap of your mind on again.

Can I use your models to do comercial renders now?(Questions a buyer may ask). Lockheed, Boeing and the others have enough money to bury most of use in court costs for the rest of our lives. If the models copywrites are not good enough for Turbo Squid then they weren't good enough for their customers. I suppose there are thousands of models of the same crafts floating around out there for sale in the same position you are. Now granted most of us are not going to use your models for any multi-million dollar projects, but just the same shouldn't your readme say for private use only so the customer doesn't get burned? Or do you think Turbo Squid is just picking on you? If for some reason I used a VP heli model and made millions with it and got sued by one of those companies. I'd come after you or the broker. If the readme said for comercial use and my use was within the readme guide lines. Sorry, that's the hard facts and if your readme said for private use only, then it's worthless for comercial use. Except that you're using them for comercial purposes yourself. They own the likeness of their machines period(like it or not). As long as you sell them without their express permission they might come and shut you down and I would think the buyer who bought it too. You either want to keep takeing that chance or you don't. It may not be them that comes after you. They may have given permission to somebody else already and they don't want the competition. You should ask them for permission. If they don't give it except that and go on.

If you'd like to translate that into a known language, I'd be delighted to respond.

Ditto Jugoth ... the most irritating thing about all of these copyright / patent
clampdowns is that China doesn't give a damn.  Big American and Euro companies
are busily destroying small American and Euro companies, while China cheerfully
knocks off everything from music to movies to machine guns.

Even more irritating is the Palestinian Mickey Mouse suicide bomber 
character.  It's a near-perfect knockoff of Mickey, but Disney hasn't
protested publicly or sued.    If anyone dared to make a pro-Western
use of Mickey, they'd be bankrupted in a Hollywood millisecond. 
We have to assume, by its behavior, that Disney approves of Hamas 
more than it approves of America.

In other words, "When fair use is outlawed, only outlaws will copy."

My python page
My ShareCG freebies

actually he's dead.

he was executed live...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6257594.stm

A Palestinian TV station has killed off a controversial Mickey Mouse lookalike that critics said was spreading anti-US and anti-Israeli messages to children.

Can I use your models to do comercial renders now? Yep - in the same way you can use the daz blackhawk, 3dc jaguar cars, or the F-16 as sold here.

shouldn't your readme say for private use only so the customer doesn't get burned? Nope. Why should it ?

If I thought that buying something, or using a freebie, could cause me a serious problem, I'd check it out 1st.

Do you think Turbo Squid is just picking on you?
It's nothing personal. Lockheed and other companys are getting tough on a lot of folks not just in the 3d world.

I'd come after you or the broker.
You'd be welcome to try. Thats not a offensive or rude comment, its because this model (as an example) was made by 2 people from different countrys. Each of which have different laws regarding consumer protection and copyrights.

If a brokerage wanted to be awkward they could easily include a caveat in the licence agreement limiting any loss or damage to the original purchase price. Thats what film processing shops do to avoid being sued for the commerical value of a film.

they might come and shut you down
Yep they could, but they could also (using the example above) try to shut down daz or here as well under the same grounds.

Also consider the very nature of selling Poser models online. These are intangabile products sold in a virtual environment. Say Lockheed shut down a store by hassling the hosting company, within 24 hours you could be back up and running again with a new host or url. If the owner was being hassled they just assign the rights to someone else. For example when poser pros had copyight hassles they sold to daz. 

Plus Ockham is right if a US/European company doesn't supply it then a Chinese compnay will and normally less legally as well.

and I would think the buyer who bought it too.
Why would they ? Theres no money in hassling the little guy.

keep takeing that chance or you don't.
I'm happy to take and so are many other stores. If daz thought their blackhawk or VW would get them closed down they'd have pulled it years ago. Now it's part of the PC club pack. 

Khai - an evil mickey mouse - that sounds fun :)

Pinky - you left the lens cap of your mind on again.

We all know there is tons of models of cars and planes in various market places and they accept them. It seems doubtful that it would even be worth while for the origanal manufacturer to go around stepping on little people. Mp3's went unchecked for a long time until the day finally came. Not to say you can't still download pirate music anymore. They handled it by making an example out of a few folks(even some little kids got hassled). This gets the message out and keeps the honest honest. The true pirate is going to keep on doing it. A law can be made, but that doesn't mean it's easy to enforce. I'm sure Lockheed and Boeing could reach out and touch you if they want too. Will they want too? Who knows?

 

I'm sure Lockheed and Boeing could reach out and touch you if they want too. Yep - they could. If they did then I'm sure lots of other stores would get whacked as well.  

While it would be annoying fora store and unfair for customers to lose the chance to get these models, it wouldn't lead to the closure of any stores because most stores have such a diverise range of products. Looking tonight at VP I see 679 products - and theres probably 10 helis tops. Plus it wouldn't take long to make something new.  
  
This gets the message out and keeps the honest honestNot really - it's a scare tactic thats all. Doesn't stop anyone, they'll switch to systems like P2P where tracking downloaders is difficult.  Ask anyone around you - I bet many of your friends are like mine and download movies or music. 

Interestingly why some people pirate is changing, some folks now download stuff to try it before buying.  

Pinky - you left the lens cap of your mind on again.

Turbo Squid already did get whacked from what I'm reading. If you can find a legal loop hole then by all means use it. There is always going to be the big bull of the woods scenario though. If you have enough power you can make it happen anyways. Have fun! 

It's freaking war machines were talking about.  So, by the reasoning that they are within their rights to protect the image of their product and company, what if one of these companies objects to, for example,  the New York times running a picture form Iraq that shows one of their war machines in a less than favourable light?  That''ll be great when the media can't cover a war because all of the soldier's weapons, uniforms and vehicles are copyrighted designs.  Bell should've tried that in Vietnam, they could've kept the whole war off of TV.

Quote - and I would think the buyer who bought it too.
Why would they ? Theres no money in hassling the little guy.

That hasn't stopped the RIAA

Quote -
The Bell UH1 is a prime example of a major problem.  It is associated with several wars - Korea and Vietnam to name two.  With a restriction on selling quality 3D representations, only bankrolls can afford to use them in any related way - or every CG person wanting to use one in a render or animation will have to model it him/her self.  I'm sorry, what security breach is caused by a representation of a 50 y/o helicopter again?

I suggest that any 3D modeler that works for or is contracted out by companies like Lockheed start charging hundreds of thousands of dollars for their work - trademark your individual modeling technique and request a license for the contractual use of it! ;P

Here's another trick for 3D modeler to "get around" all this legal binding stuff and I've seen lots of modelers doing this, is that you make NO MENTION of the actual product name AT ALL. Take the Bell UH-1 for example, when you sell this model product you rename it like "Army transport helicopter" or "Army Common Helicopter" and so forth but you DO NOT mention its actual product name at all, besides the 3D model you made is not the same actual working machine in real life.

In this way the 3D modelers can sell items that may look-alike real world objects without attracting too much attention from those corporate hired, sharp-eyed snitches.

Hope that helps, and I would suggest a move to a different 3D model store because that place(Turbo Squid) is definitely compromised and will draw a lot of attention, beside I found the idea of selling a 3D toothbrush model at 100 dollar (just a figure of speech) apiece outrageous and unacceptable.

*"It's already been pointed out that their 'design' has already been paid for by the US taxpayer"

*Are you suggesting that simply selling a product transfers the copyright?

GhostWolf,  I think that that is a pretty good way of disarming the major corporations, even if I still believe that it shouldn't be necessary.     Of course, what we'll get is an unfortunate modeller, who deliberately changes a few salient details - and then gets taken to the cleaners for not presenting an accurate version of whatever it may be.   Close enough, but not close enough, so to speak.   

I thought I'd read that they were being taken down regardless of name if an offending resemblance was claimed...

Yup, page 1: :rolleyes:

"Just to let everyone know, Turbo Squid is removing all products that have any similarities to real-world vehicles made by Lockheed, Cessna, and Bell Helicopter, irregardless of the name of the digital product."

"Any similarities"???    I can believe lawyers capable of most things, but not of being thick enough to fall for that.   That clause is virtually limitless.

...and this is how democracy falls, not by war, by but by complacency, by allowing those with power to do as they please...
sorry, you can't own ANYHTING you can't hold physically: that's what folk simply cannot accept. 
bunch of aliens fly over head, take a photo,  re-build a Porche from the gorund up..oh who's gonna stop 'em? )r the billions of tv shows/films etc we've been bemaingout for decades itno space, who owns 'em, eh?
What happens in 50 years when mahcines really can replicate anything from a photo?

Sorry, it's all insanity. Only the moral right of a creator to be recognized as the true creator, is the only logical thing that can be applied to art. Once somone sees/hears/reads something THEY OWN IT IN THEIR HEAD. ANd if you don't watch out, that too will be illegal...
People's love affair with materialism is abut to hit the buffers. Digital "reality" and destruction of our planet...

As one person, a profiler for the FBI, iirc, aptly pointed out, a corporation is by defination a psychopath. Nothing, absolutely NOTHING matters except their own advancement.
So, please think of that when supporting all the various "IP" laws and such. One day, you will own nothing, everything will have a EULA...and then we'll be slaves...ther'es freedom for all, or freedom for none. Our own greed and short sightedness blinds folk to the dangers, we all want our piece of the poisoned pie...
Go check what the RIAA etc have been up to, it goes way beyond even the absurd ;)

apologies for rant but hell, warned folk about this stuff 10+ years ago
Lol only stopped into Poser forum to ask a question, hehe!

"I'd rather be a Fool who believes in Dragons, Than a King who believes in Nothing!" www.silverblades-suitcase.com
Free tutorials, Vue & Bryce materials, Bryce Skies, models, D&D items, stories.
Tutorials on Poser imports to Vue/Bryce, Postwork, Vue rendering/lighting, etc etc!

*Any similarities"*Yep. That falls under the argument that a derivative (something like but an exact copy) weakens the original in some way.  Ussually the lawyers argue it damages the orignals brand or image.

*when mahcines really can replicate anything from a photo? *Thats sort of possible now. You could use photogrammety to make a 3d object, clean it up and then print it on a solid printer.   

*apologies for rant *Rant away :) I know exactly what you mean. The scary part is groups like the RIAA have no legal powers, yet ISP's and telecos cave in every time and the RIAA acts like Judge and Jury. 

But If you where a terrorist planning to blow something up, the cops can't use certain types of evidence. Wrong and just stupid.     

Pinky - you left the lens cap of your mind on again.

just as an aside, the DSM4 has deprecated the use of the term "psychopath". it's now mostly used by media personalities, but not by psychiatrists, who sometimes use the term "sociopathic personality disorder", but even that is not regarded as a very useful diagnostic tool.

Quote - Lockheed doesn't even exist any more, does it?   Wasn't it swallowed up by Boeing?

No, they are the two big guys in the US military aerospace industry...

Boeing swallowed Mc Donnell Douglas and Hughes...

As an aside aside, an excellent example of a pyschopath/ sociopath is Hannibal Lecter, especially as seen in Silence of the Lambs. True pyschopaths are usually highly intelligent, but are lacking in empathy. This is why Lecter killed (and ate) his victims "and his heart rate never got above 84" (or whatever the quote is).

And, yes, the media uses this term for anyone who they consider "crazy".

Corporations can't be "psychopaths" since they're a corporation. ;)
However, too many companies are run by corporate lawyers who think the best marketing strategy is to sue, even if it means trashing the company's reputation.
And in the case of the RIAA, they believe the best plan is to legally extort money from their customers: the RIAA has told people that they can pay $3,500 for the RIAA to drop the case or else the RIAA will sue and the person will they'll have to pay for a lawyer, a legal defense, etc.
Anyway, back on the subject: in my conversations with TurboSquid, it seems that the admins are trying to protect customers from purchasing items (such as aircraft), only to find out that it wasn't properly "licensed".
They want to avoid a situation where someone makes a video and Lockheed (for example) finds out. The person may say he bought the "Military Attack Copter" (which has no copyrighted markings on it), but Lockheed may say it resembles their own helicopter too closely and that the merchant who made the product doesn't have permission from Lockheed to sell it.

What happens to the video? Is the person supposed to take it down? Can he get a refund from the merchant since he bought the product specifically for use in his video? Can the customer go after TS with some kind of claim about false advertising? In these days of anyone suing anyone for anything, who knows what could happen.

VanishingPoint... Advanced 3D Modeling Solutions

Jhoagland,
yeah that was the point: corporations have no empathy, like a psychopath, all they care about is their own, selfish, petty desires ;)  As an entity. they behave in an insane manner.
-As another aside, recent study thinks this is due to area in the brain relating to comprehending facial expressions is much smaller/damaged in such folk.
-In the case of corporations, individuals let the entity over-ride their morals and common sense, like what happened with the mass murdering regimes of the last century, SAME lunacy. All they care about is shareholders/profit margins...perfect example of this is the evil SOBs in an oil company who had to get rid of toxic sludge form their operations, rather than pay couple of million for European companies ot do it properly, they came up with a complex plan to illegally dump it in Africa for $250,000...killing dozens of folk in the process.
-Capitalism liek anything else we Humans do, is bad in extremes, and eventually will destroy itself (and us in the process). Too much power leads to oligarchies and as is happening int he USA, the destruction of the wealth and stability of the middle and workign class...who are essential in Capitalism for wealth egneration...it's liek a pyramid, jacke dup form belowan inch at a time...effectively, the foundations are being corroded and the structure unstable from being top heavy and the builders on the top aren't listening to the structural engineers from the bottom...simple analogy but basically true.

Anyway, coporationsa re trying to "own" EVERYTHING, rememebr Microsoft's isnane desire to patent the "right mouse click"? Companies are also immorally setting up "Patent traps", they make a spurios claim to ownership of idea for soemthing, so when soemone does make something, they step in and sue....

IMHO, only single Human beings should be allowed to have copyrights, it's dangerous and insane otherwise. The designer of a Porsche is fine, but not Porsche the company because how the flip can a thing that doesn't exist outside human social interaction bloody well own something? it's not REAL, a company is not a "real" thing. Companies are trying to extend copyright/patent durations...where as copyright linked ot a real person ends on their death (or can be extended), corporations are "immortal"...see the problem?

:)

"I'd rather be a Fool who believes in Dragons, Than a King who believes in Nothing!" www.silverblades-suitcase.com
Free tutorials, Vue & Bryce materials, Bryce Skies, models, D&D items, stories.
Tutorials on Poser imports to Vue/Bryce, Postwork, Vue rendering/lighting, etc etc!

Quote - Well here's your problem, if you made model which resembles their product and given away for free, they are probably not going to say anything about it. But if you actually sell them for commercial purpose (which is the keyword) without informing them first or made a contract with them regarding its designes, sooner or later you will be served with a court order.

I've seen lots of free firearms models in the freebies section and they look exactly like Heckler & Koch firearms, it's been there for years and so far they have not been taken down due to manufacturer's complaint.

 

I've read, however, that the firearms companies aren't worried about collecting royalties on models, since they still view them as free advertising.

regarding the hamas version of m. mouse, I recall the script had it killed by an israeli soldier who wanted to steal its land. we don't actually know if disney exerted any pressure on fatah to pressure hamas, but it's hard to imagine the CEO of disney doing anything but making a big donation to the israeli government. the misconception about free advertising is one of the oldest copyright or trademark myths on the internet. if H-K knew about these things, they'd be down quicker than white on rice. they can't waste their legal staff's time searching these 3D sites. which brings up a very disappointing policy that's common to all these sites - they try to excuse themselves from copyright infringement cases with concepts like "buyer beware", "transformative use" or unethical application of the DMCA.

Curiouser and curiouser. Is it a violation, I wonder, if someone picks up a pencil and draws one of these from memory, after having seen it on the six o'clock news? if so, the world must be insane.

Er, make that even more insane than I ever thought possible. ;-)

Curiouser and curiouser. Is it a violation, I wonder, if someone picks up a pencil and draws one of these from memory, after having seen it on the six o'clock news? if so, the world must be insane.

You hit the nail right on the head.   Taking the corporate "logic" to its limits, which isn't a very long journey, they actually ought to consider that drawing from memory is a violation (which wouldn't make the attitude less curious, by any means).   Likewise, when anyone manages to get a photo of a jet blasting over the hillsides, that should (by the same corporate "logic") be considered a violation, too.   The only difference between the pencilled-sketch and the photo, on the one hand, and the 3D model, on the other, is that the model ends up on the internet, on predictable sites, where the lawyers can find it easily.   I suppose that you can add to that the fact that a 3D model does look, to the uninitiated, quite technical, even when it isn't, for real-world purposes.    No lawyer wants to have to convince a jury that some inept scribble, that looks roughly half-way between a VTOL Harrier and a harrier of one of the various species of the genus Circus, realistically presents any threat to security.   This shows up the hypocrisy of the whole policy. 

For real coporate stupidity the best I've read is Dells EULA, bascially you can't sell the machine to anyone in the axis of evil or use it to create anything nuclear. You have to sign it as well or they won't deliver the machine.

I can just imagine Osma and his crew sitting around dissapointed saying "we've had to scrub the dirty bomb plan because it infringes an EULA, looks like it's back to blowing sheep"  :)

Pinky - you left the lens cap of your mind on again.

Yep.   I don't work for Dell, but I have to make an annual promise not to sell nukes to Kim Jong-Il and co.   Not too hard:  I have no sympathy for Kim and my company doesn't make nukes, anyway.