I was wondering if it was now safe to upload my Star Wars-branded items with their full copyrighted names?

The reason I ask is that on page 5 of the Free Stuff is an item called "Star Wars Naboo Royal Cruiser Recon on Hoth". That's at least 3 copyrighted words in the title ("Star Wars", "Naboo", and "Hoth"), yet the item was approved for the free stuff section. My own Star Wats models were deleted for only using one copyrighted word ("X-Wing" or "Landspeeder").

Now, granted, this item is an animation and not a 3d model, but shouldn't the same "can't use copyrighted words in the title" policy apply?
Or has the policy changed? Are we now allowed to upload items with copyrighted names to the Free Stuff section?
And if the policy has not changed, why was this item approved? I thought Free Stuff items were being held for 24-48 hours to check things like this.

Probably best to ask this in the copyright forum. :)

Quote - I was wondering if it was now safe to upload my Star Wars-branded items with their full copyrighted names?

The reason I ask is that on page 5 of the Free Stuff is an item called "Star Wars Naboo Royal Cruiser Recon on Hoth". That's at least 3 copyrighted words in the title ("Star Wars", "Naboo", and "Hoth"), yet the item was approved for the free stuff section. My own Star Wats models were deleted for only using one copyrighted word ("X-Wing" or "Landspeeder").

Now, granted, this item is an animation and not a 3d model, but shouldn't the same "can't use copyrighted words in the title" policy apply?
Or has the policy changed? Are we now allowed to upload items with copyrighted names to the Free Stuff section?
And if the policy has not changed, why was this item approved? I thought Free Stuff items were being held for 24-48 hours to check things like this.

If it's an animation, that is considered "art" and I would think that the use of "Star Wars" would be ok because it is classified as "fan art". However a model that is uploaded for redistribution and use is not considered fan art and therefore would be considered a copyright and/or trademark violation.

Quote -  

However a model that is uploaded for redistribution and use is not considered fan art and therefore would be considered a copyright and/or trademark violation.

except they actually have a letter from Lucas giving them permission to distribute the models. this is an ongoing fight wit Rendo over this matter....

Quote -

except they actually have a letter from Lucas giving them permission to distribute the models. this is an ongoing fight wit Rendo over this matter....

Ahhh! I didn't know that.

minor correction: the names may be trademarked, but not copyrighted AFAIK. I ain't a lawyer. it's pretty easy to call up lucasarts in frisco (the presidio) and just ask them for permission. 'rosity can't give ya permission to use lucasart's trademarks.

*"except they actually have a letter from Lucas giving them permission to distribute the models. "

*who has ? 

*"it's pretty easy to call up lucasarts in frisco (the presidio)"

*what like ....the George Lucas.... ? - cool :)

brrrring
bbrrrriing
"Hi, is George in?"
"George? Do you mean mr. Lucas?"
"Yeah, George."
"Umm, he's in a meeting right now. May I ask what this is about?"
"Sure, it's about the evil controlling forces that mock me everyday."
"Um hmm..."
"Well, they're basically evil, and they are, ummm...controlling. Which makes them evil controlling forces."
"I see."
"Oh no, you don't see...they're invisable!"
"Well, thank you for calling."
"But what about George?"
click...bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Quote - *"except they actually have a letter from Lucas giving them permission to distribute the models. "

*who has ? 

*"it's pretty easy to call up lucasarts in frisco (the presidio)"

*what like ....the George Lucas.... ? - cool :)

well I remember when this fight first started, it was claimed they had permission they could show Rendo.. so I assumed it was in writing...

and when calling george (he's usually at his mill valley home, not at the presidio), one must be certain to follow some formalities, e.g. wearing one's aluminium hat, to prevent the govt. from detecting negative thought waves from one's cerebellum, such as it is :lol: but if they've got written permission, they don't hafta show it to anybody with no legal standing. I ain't a lawyer.

but if they've got written permission, they don't hafta show it to anybody That would be fine if they werent involving Rsity in their transactions. Once they do that, then, yeppers, they gotta produce that puppy on demand.

Okay, so it seems that animation freebies are exempt from the "no copyrighted names allowed" policy. But, I'd still prefer to hear an official statement from an admin about this.

Here are some better examples:

1. Do a search for "box" in the Free Stuff section. On page 3 is an item called "Police Box TARDIS style". While "Police Box" may not be copyrighted, "TARDIS" certainly is. My own TARDIS model was removed because it used this same, copyrighted word.
2. Do a search for "doctor" and the first item returned is "Wusamah Doctor Strange Texture"... and "Doctor Strange" is most certainly copyrighted by Marvel Comics.
3. Do a search for "aqua" and all three "Aqua Teen Hunger Force" characters are shown on the first page: Meatwad, Frylock, and Master Shake. While "ATHF" may not be copyrighted (but probably is), those names with those likenesses certainly are.

So, I'll re-phrase the question: given that these items are so easy to find, has the "no copyrighted names" policy been revoked? Can I start uploading Star Wars items with their proper name?

Sorry Khai - wasn't clear with my Q there ...but when you write...
"it was claimed they had permission they could show Rendo.. so I assumed it was in writing..".
...who is they ?  

Heydork/Miss Nancy*  - dang right out of kitchen foil :) LOL 

You don't need to search for these things, the very first item in the Poser Freestuff is a Klingon uniform.

the problem there is that the DMCA can be interpreted so that it allows any site to ignore any complaints from persons who don't own the trademark or copyright to any starwars items. so if some guy says he has written permission from lucasarts, the only entities to whom he is required to show the document are lucasarts and employees of the hosting site. he isn't required to show it to any of us, hence it's both pointless and potentially libellous to dispute whether said document exists IMVHO.

Technically, if a Product has Licensing (and the words are Trademarked, the designs are copyrighted. You can License both), it has to include the Licensing Statement acknowledging the ownership of the Trademark and Copyright. 

This Licensing agreement also could include restrictive use. I worked on a deal where, if it is completed, the Licensing for the product would have include a statement saying no use of Nudity in the Render with product or images of illegal acts, acts of a sexual nature, etc.... (Long List). The hanging point was they wanted a Licensing Statement to be included in the Packaging of any Final Work IE Renders/Animations. Wording the License in a matter that allows someone buying a Mesh to have distribution Licensing of their images was what ended up killing the deal. My Lawyer wanted a few grand and they wanted us to also pay for their Legal Department to review the Agreement and amend the Agreement.. there was not that much money in the first few products planned! We also figured it would add about $20 onto each product just to cover the legal expenses!

I might try it again if I had more products lined up to make back the initial cost.

*"the Licensing for the product would have include a statement saying no use of Nudity"

*Daz had a similar kinda thing in their licence for the AMG figure. (I sent that back simply because it didn't work) but If I'd read that licence first I or one a smilar agreement I probably wouldn't have bought either. While I don't render out much 'cheesecake' - I might want to in future and I know a lot of people do. 

So who decides whats "right" or "wrong" ? daz, rendo, the vendor, US, EU, or UK government ?
 
Also what happens if I don't see or read that licence, or choose to ignore it in favour of the store licence then what ? I could be on the other side of the planet -so anything spent making lawyers richer could be wasted.  

BTW - Ratscloset - thisn't a critisim of your approach. I just sometimes question just how viable or valid these licences are.  

Actually, you're missing the point. It doesn't matter if I (or anyone else) has full permission from Lucas to sell or make models or redistribute them.

The point is that Renderosity has a policy that says they don't allow free items with copyrighted names, irregardless of any kind of "permission". This is the policy set by Renderosity and the policies on other sites are completely irrevelant.
Yet, after they deleted my items because of this issue, they're now allowing items with copyrighted names?

Why the change in policy?
P.S. dadt is correct- there is a Klingon Uniform on the first page of the Free Stuff section... something that I always though was againt the policy because of the word "Klingon". However, if this item is allowed, I expect people to upload their Klingon starships, and of course, the Enterprise itself.

Yes Hoagland you are right, we got off topic there a bit. But there appears to be a double standard at the moment. One is an animation (going by what others said) and the other is a a model...obviously the difference between them is that you could hypothetically hold one in your arms and manipulate it while the other (animation) is just a file and somewhat limited as to it's manipulation.
Not taking sides here just trying to wrap my brain around it. That's the only difference I see and possibly  renderosity's position (???).

Quote - *"the Licensing for the product would have include a statement saying no use of Nudity"

*Daz had a similar kinda thing in their licence for the AMG figure. (I sent that back simply because it didn't work) but If I'd read that licence first I or one a smilar agreement I probably wouldn't have bought either. While I don't render out much 'cheesecake' - I might want to in future and I know a lot of people do. 

So who decides whats "right" or "wrong" ? daz, rendo, the vendor, US, EU, or UK government ?
 
Also what happens if I don't see or read that licence, or choose to ignore it in favour of the store licence then what ? I could be on the other side of the planet -so anything spent making lawyers richer could be wasted.  

BTW - Ratscloset - thisn't a critisim of your approach. I just sometimes question just how viable or valid these licences are.  

You bring up some good points and ask some good questions. I will say I do not have the answers. That is the main reason when a client approached me I got an Attorney involved. We were not looking for a loop hole, we wanted to do it right. That is my personal policy when it comes to property rights.. I look on all of them as I hope others would if the creations were mine.

Licenses are required to use anothers Property Rights and Trademarks. It is the form that the permission is granted. If you think about it, that is the story with each and every product we use within Poser. If you are saying those with the strong restrictions would not be valid, then you are saying the ones on Poser products are not and anyone could load them up as Free Items or even sell them and trade them around as if they were baseball cards. 

License allows the use of anothers protected intellectual rights and Trademarks with restrictions on those uses.. It is just that we as a community have a sort of double standard, in that we defend the rights of other members, but ignore those we do not know so well. For those that have been around, we have seen the lynchings of both guilty and innocent.

With respect to which License would be enforced.. Maybe a product like that could not be sold at Renderosity. Who sees the ones now? Anyone can say, oh, I did not read that.. but even you read the DAZ One when you got the product.. so we know you would ! LOL.. But you  are right.. a product like that would have to have an installer... forcing the acceptance of the License, even if the customer refused, they would have to have agreed.

How viable? I will say they are very viable, or at least people take them as being very viable and respect them (Granted there are those that do not, but they take no licenses or rights with respect, unless it is them being harmed)... I had the opportunity to work closely with a Commercial Production. There are rules for the licensing of the items used in the Commercial, even when you already have the rights. (It was a Car Dealership..) In this case no other Nameplates could be shown in the shots when specific vehicles were being promoted, even if the Dealership sold that product. In this case it was Ford/Lincoln/Mercury Dealer, and when highlighting the Taurus at the time, the Lincoln that was behind it had to be move out of Camera. Silly, but even when Ford and Lincoln are the same company, they had rules. 

To who approves? I assume you mean the final use... oddly, no one does.. with that said, I would not want to be caught by the legal power of some of these companies, should they decide to pursue enforcement.. look at the Recording Industry.. . The recording industry is a great example.. you know they do not give a crap who you are or how old you are... 

I will add that I think today getting License for 3D product would be easier... when I first approached, the whole concept of Graphics was not what it is today... I even went through a couple of Attorneys before I found one willing to apply for the License.. the product description was the hardest part, and the fact they wanted to see an example of the Product. 

I will also add that I think creators should ask for Licenses.. With License, even limited, you could have Corvettes, BMWs, GE Appliances, etc... with full textures of the logos and I do not think all would have the restrictions I mentioned... yes, I know there are some out there already, but for those that do Commercial work, how many would use one with out the proper credentials in a Commercial Clients work?