OK people - I'm all wound up from the recent Content Paradise split from RuntimeDNA, on top of the Renderosity one.  So let's all pay attention to an issue regarding the freebie called Wapico's PU Doll for Poser.  Some of you have it.

See this :
http://pudollfanclub.smfforfree.com/topic/151.0.html
and this:
http://www.contentparadise.com/us/user/search.php?substring=WapicoPu

Meanwhile, Wapico has removed the free item from her / his website.
http://wapidoll.seesaa.net/article/30094498.html

Upshot is:
Creator makes fan art 3D version of real doll product of a real company.  Makes it free under terms that it and all related items created for it must be free. 

Someone comes along and makes commercial products for the free fan item.  Sells them at a brokerage.

Fearing being sued by commercial company of real product, creator pulls the item.  Meanwhile, commercial product still remains for sale.

Eternal Hobbyist

 

Why not contact Content Paradise and let them know that the items are in violation of copyright law?

"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

Are they though technically? I don;t know what products they are, but if they are not redistributing a copyrighted item, then just because the base figure could be a possible infringement doesn't mean the expansion for it is.

Might be one of those weird gray areas.

Way too many people take way too many things way too seriously.

Surely someone at content parasite should be checking for things like this?

They might not technically be breaking the law, but it is not right for them to allow this to happen.

They have now sunk even lower in my estimations of them.

Err, "trademark" violation/infringement, not "copyright". HTH, /P

It is nothing to do with trademarks or copyrights, it is about commercial items being made for a free item where the creator of the free item has forbidden commercial items to be made.

That is a restriction beyond there abiltiy to enforce. If I make a model then say you can not put a stone texture on it any court on the planet would'nt even hear the case.

I can say I want something- but that dosn't mean it has any validity beyond it being a wish.

Fair use! means that secondary original items are not included in any restrictions.

People DO NOT have absolute control over everything!

So if I make available a free figure, I have no rights over it except copyright?

Copyright requires the Copyright Holder contact with a Claim of the violation. Also, just because something is free, does not protect against Copyright. The penalties are for each incident and have nothing to do with how much money. (Think of the Recording Industry fines for those that allowed others to download.)

Have the Licensed Holder file the Complaint. So far they have refused to do so.

ratscloset
aka John

The maker of the doll doesn`t speak english very well, which might put him off from making a complaint.

Actually, originall the figure was presented "not for commercial use"

The product(s) in question are new textures for the figure. Technically, they do not use the figure at all, and are not infringing on any rights.

Granted, now the creator does not want any commercial products to be released FOR the figure, but I don't see how that would be reinforcable at all.

It would be like microsoft trying to block a program for windows.

"not for commercial use" typically means that the none of the content can be used in a commercial endeavor.. a film, still pics, ect, however the texture sets do not include ANY of the original content at all, so that becomes hard to enforce.

Add in the creator is based in Japan, where content rights different from US content rights, I think they only thing that could be done is the commercial products be removed from the marketplace by their own creator, as a consideration to the original figure creator. removing the figure's availability cuts down the market for it anyway, however I do feel bad for the texture creator as well.

I can se eboth sides of the coin, and technically both are in their own rights.

Way too many people take way too many things way too seriously.

The texture creator was asked not to make commercial products using this figure, they are not right, it may be legal to ignore someones request about the use of their product but it is not ethical.

I would imagine that the texture creator was asked after the fact, not before release.

So you've got one person who invested a lot of effort releasing a product, possibly their first one, and the original creator not happy that they created something for profit that support their character.

A sticky situation for both parties.. especially if the texture creator is doing this to put food on their table, or helping to support their family.

Way too many people take way too many things way too seriously.

I meant that the readme says that it is for non commercial use only, I can understand that they might be making things because they need the money, but they could have made textures and addons for any other figure.

An interesting Dilemma.  My first reaction was to consider the creator of the character naive for wanting to restrict add-ons.

Upon further review, i think it was unfair of the merchant to create and try to sell something. 

I guess it all depends on whether the read-me file that was included with the character explicitely stated that no commercial add-on items could be made.  This could be a misunderstanding as opposed to a case of blatant "just try and stop me".

True, the vendor is not breaking any laws, but it is a matter of honor.  The community is now being punished because of this as the creator of the original character has pulled it from circulation.

Oh, and as far as what ratscloset said concerning copyright, does fan-art or fan-fiction threaten copyright?  I'm not certain that a fan 3D mesh would either, but these laws are always so grey.  I remember a case about someone who was giving away 3D meshes of liquor bottles (can't remmber the brand) and they recieved a cease and desist notice.  Also, many years back (1990's) wasn't there a huge case where paramount was trying to shut down Star Trek fan sites?

All I know for sure about the copyright thing is if I use something in a commercial project that is a fan-mesh that I could be in a lot of trouble.  That's why I really get angry at fan meshes being sold in stores, especially when they do not reference the original source!

**@ThrommArcadia:
**
Our Copyright experts would have to give their word on this but as I understand it, fan art does infringe copyright/trademark but it's up to the companies involved to decide whether or not it's in their interest to defend their legal rights.

The short version is, if you create something, you have the absolute right to say how, where and when it can be used by others, if at all.  And yes, a restriction such as "I don't allow this model to be used with a stone texture" is enforcable in law.  It may sound stupid and frivolous but nevertheless, it still applies.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

Meanwhile, Wapico's page says:

"Only as for the hoping person, I will send direct produced works. The reason for the purpose
is that it is necessary to know the name who has my work." 

Language barriers are such a challenge.

I wonder if this mean that if you contact him directly and promise to abide by his wishes, you will be able to get any past and future items.  I'd ask him, but I doubt the translation from babelfish would make any sense. 

Cheers,
Alisa

RETIRED HiveWire 3D QAV Director

I believe Wapico understands written English better than he writes it.  No harm trying.  Give the guy some encouragement as well.

Eternal Hobbyist

 

It's not a copyright infringement per say, but it is a breach of the license agreement.  She isn't selling any parts of the figure, just addons, but she is still using the figure in her promo images and just that by itself is a commercial use.

Lucie
finfond.net
finfond.net (store)

According to his site,he wishes everyone that still has the pu doll model to delete it so it never happens again. It's a shame Sarponita won't remove the things from Content Paradise. Talking to them does no good. They claim only she can do it.

Well, I wont be buying anything else at that place till this gets sorted out.

Quote - According to his site,he wishes everyone that still has the pu doll model to delete it so it never happens again. It's a shame Sarponita won't remove the things from Content Paradise. Talking to them does no good. They claim only she can do it.

The "claim" is a fact. It's the same here-ONLY the copyright holder has the right to ask them to take it down. And I imagine they would-but if the creator has not asked them to, why should they? I'm sure the creator knows this.

My Stuff:) You might hate it, but you never know... 
Here 
CP

Quote - > Quote - According to his site,he wishes everyone that still has the pu doll model to delete it so it never happens again. It's a shame Sarponita won't remove the things from Content Paradise. Talking to them does no good. They claim only she can do it.

The "claim" is a fact. It's the same here-ONLY the copyright holder has the right to ask them to take it down. And I imagine they would-but if the creator has not asked them to, why should they? I'm sure the creator knows this.

The maker of the pu doll does not speak english so well, which might put him off from complaining to cp.

I wonder if someone started making poser versions of disney figures, if cp would allow these to be sold till disney actually complained?  I am guessing that they wouldn`t even go on sale to start with.