Quote - Bitch n Moan Thread is what this thread is all about. If you want to skip that thread read this

Not at all. It's about correctly labeling stuff. No one asked for a freebie, or asked for more commercial usable ones. The only bitch and moan I came about was about the homepage of the OP. But there already were a lot of posts which assumed this would be a Bitch and Moan thread.

Quote -

I would love to get some feed back on my stuff I have in the free section here or at my site.  All I was doing was posting something someone might find interesting.

Ok, some feed back. I downloaded the V4 bar maid outfit, which is flagged as "Commercial and non commercial use". I opened the ReadMe-file, which reads

Quote -
Thank you for purchasing the V4 Barmaid Outfit
This product is not for commerical use with out the permission from PoserUnderground.

Why don't you set the flag right? Or is the ReadMe wrong? That's exactly why I nearly stopped loading freebies from here.

Clarity is the devil!  Perpetrators of evil want to sell free meshes for profit and are unappreciative of sweaters!!!!

Quote - Bantha's right - though my take is for 2 categories only.  

Maybe I'm misundestanding what two categories you mean... we have two categories right now (Commercial and non commercial), and the current setup is causing problems...

Quote - Thats why you'd have an assumpation akin to what Jeff states - namely that it's only the end use of the freebie (for example renders or animations) thats permitted.

I think there's already a provision for that somewhere on rendo in general terms. I need to look and see where. I vaguely remember it existing somewhere.

Quote - > Quote - Bitch n Moan Thread is what this thread is all about. If you want to skip that thread read this

Not at all. It's about correctly labeling stuff. No one asked for a freebie, or asked for more commercial usable ones. The only bitch and moan I came about was about the homepage of the OP. But there already were a lot of posts which assumed this would be a Bitch and Moan thread.

So how do you label 'some or conditional commercial use permitted'? 
We have commercial and non commercial right now.

Some people will argue that 'Conditional commercial use' falls under 'commercial use permitted', others will argue that it falls under commercial use not permitted.  It's open to subjective interpretations. So, when you have conditions attached to commercial use, there really is no way to label it correctly.

If you label it non-commercial, and you allow most poserdom commercial uses with no conditions, lot of people will miss out on it, unecessarily.
Also, if you label your freebies non comercial, you open yourself up to unecessary attacks from people whom blanketly think that should they win a $20 gift certificate on an occasional render, you're going to begrudge it. And people complaining that it's too hard and time consuming to read the readme's.

If you label it commercial ok, but add a caviot like: ask for permission first or something similar, then you get complaints like the ones in this thread.

Doesn't seem like there's a right way to label freebies with some commercial rights reserved.

Quote - With the exception of the one guy at TurboSquid I sure would like to know where all these "mesh thieves"  are selling all these stolen meshes at.  Since for me I'm only aware of a couple stores where the traffic is high enough to make any money at all off of something.

In all the rush to praise the generosity of freebie providers and immediately silence anyone who offers  up any critique on the process we seem to forget what the freebie provider does get - name recognition - which = up to $$ in the marketplace so I hear. 

I think then that it is reasonable that the consumer ask for changes if those changes are warranted.  Which in this situation that has caused many to stop utilizing the freebies at all I think that they are warranted. 
I apologize for my audacity Ill get my shrine back up in short order :p

Noone is trying to hush up 'any critique on the process' as you are suggesting.
There's a huge difference between beligerent rants and constructive critique.

Your post is a good example of what I intensely dislike.
Unless freebie providers put up with lashing out and putdowns and beligerance because of any idiosynchracies of their 'freebies', people act like we insist to be held on a pedestal.

I thought just few posts ago you were talking about how you don't like negativity, but yet you are defending it and helping proliferate it. Make up your mind, will ya?

It's simple, if I'm going to be yelled at and have to listen to put downs (like your quoted post - that was anything but constructive critique) for offering freebies, I won't offer them any more. Especially not any that intend to offer in the spirit of sharing.
As for marketing pieces to help sales, there's plenty of top sellers in the marketplace whom don't offer any freebies. It helps a little bit when you're new, but it's not a necessity.

Quote - Clarity is the devil!  Perpetrators of evil want to sell free meshes for profit and are unappreciative of sweaters!!!!

Is this like a constructive critique that my dense highness is not understanding?

Quote - > Quote -

I would love to get some feed back on my stuff I have in the free section here or at my site.  All I was doing was posting something someone might find interesting.

Ok, some feed back. I downloaded the V4 bar maid outfit, which is flagged as "Commercial and non commercial use". I opened the ReadMe-file, which reads

Quote -
Thank you for purchasing the V4 Barmaid Outfit
This product is not for commerical use with out the permission from PoserUnderground.

Why don't you set the flag right? Or is the ReadMe wrong? That's exactly why I nearly stopped loading freebies from here.

Technically it is correct category - it is a non commercial product , but can be used for commercial work with correct permissions.

The read me is old an thought that I had changed it when I switched sites. Thanks for letting me know. I will change it when I get home.

Edit - adding history
Addition info for the few or many who may not know this.  PoserUnderground was a short lived site thanks to E-Frontier. E-Frontier had forced the site to close by stating I (owner of the site) owed them money for the fair use of the word poser in my site. Instead of fighting them I had closed the site and stopped selling my products. I have recently restarted a website FWHS Designs (my initials and my wife's initials). Most of the free items were once sold on PoserUnderground. So the readme's are old.

Perhaps I came to the same conclusion, that negativity requires far less energy?

Actually that is not it at all and I think you misunderstood my posts about looking for positive rather than negative.  I was referring to when we initially read a post, or a homepage for that matter.  Upon reading OPs homepage it was immediately evident to me what he was trying to express, whether or not he did so eloquently is another matter entirely.  It's been covered over and over again how text is not the best medium for communication - so armed with that knowledge we should always be aware of the fact that we might not be seeing things exactly as they were intended and should refrain from immediately jumping to the conclusion that the person meant something negative and going for the jugular.

""Unless freebie providers put up with lashing out and putdowns and beligerance because of any idiosynchracies of their 'freebies', people act like we insist to be held on a pedestal."

This is a fine example, and when you referred to my post as what you intently dislike.  I was neither beligerant nor lashing out.  I was however being sarcastic and pointing out some some of the counterproductive flaws in the argument.  This is also another great example of only seeing the negative.  I wont go as far as to re-quote my post but I can say with 100% certainty that I did not "yell at"  or "put someone down"  in my quoted post.

""It's simple, if I'm going to be yelled at and have to listen to put downs (like your quoted post - that was anything but constructive critique) for offering freebies, I won't offer them any more.""

I actually haven't critiqued anything but the attitude on the part of the freebie providers/community regarding the OP.  I said that I felt his post was reasonable and that people were trying HARD to look for negatives in posts - which is again evident in the response to my post.

""Is this like a constructive critique that my dense highness is not understanding?""

Im pretty sure I didn't call anyone dense.  You Connie are certainly far from that.  If we must insist on looking for negatives to latch onto because that requires less energy than I have to observe that making things up has to require more energy. 

*I was however being sarcastic and pointing out some some of the counterproductive flaws in the argument.  This is also another great example of only seeing the negative. *

I think I already said I'm not willing or interested in digging through negativity, looking for something positive. So, yes, this is another example of it. Am I supposed to feel bad or ashamed that I don't care to do that? Are you going to try the same thing one more time to see if my answer is going to be different?

*I wont go as far as to re-quote my post but I can say with 100% certainty that I did not "yell at"  or "put someone down"  in my quoted post.

*I wasn't refering to you only, but in addition it appears that you don't quite have a realistic view of how you come across. You don't get to be the judge of how you came across. Once something is out, all you can say, I'm sorry, I didn't intend it this way.

You admitted you were bing sarcastic. Well, sarcasam is yet another form of negativity, and often euphemistc way to work in a putdown.

But look in the mirror, long and hard. You're not exactly welcoming criticisam of your own actions and behaviors with a welcome attitude and an apology. You're being all defensive about sarcastic remarks you made intentionally.

If you want people to look past negativity, lead by example. You're not exactly looking past my negativity and trying to understand my point of view. You're being defensive and argumentative. Not any different then freebie providers act and feel when they feel overly criticized.

You said: Im pretty sure I didn't call anyone dense.  You Connie are certainly far from that. 

You're right about my not being dense, which is why aside from literal I can read implied meanings in euphemised sarcasam.
Or shal we go on playing silly word games "I never said that you said someone is dense", however, you did say I appear to be making thigs up.

Well, since you say I'm making things up and misunderstanding, can you please elaborate the meaning behind one of your sarcastic remarks, like this one: "*Clarity is the devil!  Perpetrators of evil want to sell free meshes for profit and are unappreciative of sweaters!!!!"

*Like, waht was it supposed to accomplish? Add more negativity that I don't care to try and see past for any small gems of positive? Make freebie providers more eager to share with the community (knowing people will see past an occasional mistake they make? Make them feel that people using their stuff will be respective of the rights of freebie providers?
What exactly were you trying to express? Hmm?
I'm going to play dumb here, pretend I can't read the implied meanings, and wait for your clear explanation.

You will of course lead by example see past the negativity and temperament can challenge and confrontation in my post and give me a 'bloody level headed friendly explanation', won't you?

Quote -
Technically it is correct category - it is a non commercial product , but can be used for commercial work with correct permissions.

If I have to ask beforehand, you may say "No". Or you may say "for $15".  Which isn't what I would call "Commercial allowed" in both cases. For me, that's a clear "No Commercial use".

Quote - I think I already said I'm not willing or interested in digging through negativity, looking for something positive.

But what happens if you can't be clearly demonstrated to be in opposition of  anti-negativity?
I'm confused. :blink:
J/K..

Quote - > Quote - Bantha's right - though my take is for 2 categories only.  

Maybe I'm misundestanding what two categories you mean... we have two categories right now (Commercial and non commercial), and the current setup is causing problems...

I, for my part, have no problems with the setup. I have problems with freestuff which is uploaded as "commercial use allowed" and has quotes like "ask for permission " in the read me.

I have already stated earlier that your "free if you earn less than $1000" is "commercial use allowed" to me.

I have NO problems with more options, I just would not need it, if people would use the correct switches.

Quote - > Quote - > Quote - Bantha's right - though my take is for 2 categories only.  

Maybe I'm misundestanding what two categories you mean... we have two categories right now (Commercial and non commercial), and the current setup is causing problems...

I, for my part, have no problems with the setup. I have problems with freestuff which is uploaded as "commercial use allowed" and has quotes like "ask for permission " in the read me.

I have already stated earlier that your "free if you earn less than $1000" is "commercial use allowed" to me.

I have NO problems with more options, I just would not need it, if people would use the correct switches.

I know you don't, I was asking MrSparky.

Quote - Actually that is not it at all and I think you misunderstood my posts about looking for positive rather than negative.  I was referring to when we initially read a post, or a homepage for that matter.  Upon reading OPs homepage it was immediately evident to me what he was trying to express, whether or not he did so eloquently is another matter entirely.  It's been covered over and over again how text is not the best medium for communication - so armed with that knowledge we should always be aware of the fact that we might not be seeing things exactly as they were intended and should refrain from immediately jumping to the conclusion that the person meant something negative and going for the jugular.

That remined me of some of my college classes, I think it was a speech class. The prof tried to instill into us that the grater responsibility for the message being communicated and understood as intended lays with the communicator. Not with the comunicatee.

If the majority of your apporach is aggressive and combative, but you really wanted to see a positive outcome, then you;re going about it the wrong way.

As you are discovering here, It's always easier to respond in kind, rather then across the board responding kindly.  (If it were the other way around, people would be clamoring for customer service jobs as easy money.)

Lets start from the bottom first shall we?  k then

"You will of course lead by example see past the negativity and temperament can challenge and confrontation in my post and give me a 'bloody level headed friendly explanation', won't you?"

Of course I will Connie =D

*""Well, since you say I'm making things up and misunderstanding, can you please elaborate the meaning behind one of your sarcastic remarks, like this one: "Clarity is the devil!  Perpetrators of evil want to sell free meshes for profit and are unappreciative of sweaters!!!!"

"Like, waht was it supposed to accomplish? Add more negativity that I don't care to try and see past for any small gems of positive? Make freebie providers more eager to share with the community (knowing people will see past an occasional mistake they make? Make them feel that people using their stuff will be respective of the rights of freebie providers?
What exactly were you trying to express? Hmm?"

*Nyguy on page 5 3rd post from the bottom posted this: "If you want to skip that thread read this"
So what I said in the post that you quoted me on there was a response to that link and what was contained in it and the insinuation that ppl in this thread who agreed with the OP where lumped in with those described on that site.  I was trying to achieve a response to the link.

*" You're right about my not being dense, which is why aside from literal I can read implied meanings in euphemised sarcasam.
Or shal we go on playing silly word games "I never said that you said someone is dense", however, you did say I appear to be making thigs up. "

*If you and I both know that you are not dense than I wonder why that was ever even mentioned?  Im confused about how it is a silly word game to state that I didn't say something, I didn't say that, nor did I mean that.  I stand by the belief that two adult people can debate a subject without calling eachother names.  The insinuation that I did or anyone did call you names is absolutely untrue and I retain the right to state as much.  It helps to clear up the negatives.

*""If you want people to look past negativity, lead by example. You're not exactly looking past my negativity and trying to understand my point of view. You're being defensive and argumentative. Not any different then freebie providers act and feel when they feel overly criticized.""

*I said specifically that I was never trying to push a turn the other cheek philosophy.  If all of my posts were being read and not just skimmed to find the negative, that would be abundantly clear.  I also wrote an entire paragraph in my last post regarding my meaning and I have to refer you back to that if your still unclear.

"But look in the mirror, long and hard. You're not exactly welcoming criticisam of your own actions and behaviors with a welcome attitude and an apology. You're being all defensive about sarcastic remarks you made intentionally."

I'm more than willing to look in the mirror.  I was just discussing with a friend regarding this thread and how I can't change you by pointing out your mistakes but I might better myself by realizing my own.  If you are offended by my sarcasm or feel it was misplaced than that was certainly not my intention.  I've also learned that it might in fact be in my best interest to stand back and let negativity continue to control this forum in thier endless quest for reasons to lash out.  Looking criticisim in the eye and accepting it does not necessarily mean that an apology or even an agreement is warranted, it simply means that I am willing to see another persons point of view and I definately am. 

*""You admitted you were bing sarcastic. Well, sarcasam is yet another form of negativity, and often euphemistc way to work in a putdown.""

*Ok?  I most certainly was putting that link down.  I hope that I did not hurt the links feelings.  if so I hope the link accepts my most heartfelt apology - also Nyguy - if he felt "put down"  I did not intend to.

*""I wasn't refering to you only, but in addition it appears that you don't quite have a realistic view of how you come across. You don't get to be the judge of how you came across. Once something is out, all you can say, I'm sorry, I didn't intend it this way.""

Since were on the whole look in the mirror thing, if you have the energy, you may want to ;)  Anyway Im sorry if I insulted you, I didn't intend it that way.  I welcome any view on how I come across.  I'm not going to forsake any logic in doing that though.  I think you also don't have a realistic view of how you come across.  You seem incredibly argumentative and almost as if doing this forum war thing is a sort of hobby.  While we have gotten along very well in the past you take my one differing opinion from yours and see it as reason to do text battle with me.  It's not that serious to me.  Which brings me to your next line:

""I think I already said I'm not willing or interested in digging through negativity, looking for something positive. So, yes, this is another example of it. Am I supposed to feel bad or ashamed that I don't care to do that? Are you going to try the same thing one more time to see if my answer is going to be different?""

Nope - Im not going to try to change you or your answers Connie.  It makes absolutely NO sense to me whatsoever why you are willing to invest so much time in energy in seeking out the negatives rather than the positives, but hey keep on keepin on if its workin for you. 

K so I think that's everything.  In the end I still don't think that people who want clearly labled products (free or otherwise) are theives or horrible beligerant people.  I don't think they are rude from that or mean to thier Aunts who knit sweaters.  I think they just want the products clearly labled.

Now Connie you've messed it all up by editing your post while I was posting my reply.
Bad Kitty!!!!

Or not lol _ Im just confused now :p

*Since were on the whole look in the mirror thing, if you have the energy, you may want to ;)

*Kitty Points jjroland to Kitty's sig line. Why do you think that phease is there? Just to be cute and have people say, nnnnah, you're never bad, you're the epitome of prim and proper?
I'm not always nice, I get grumpy opinionated and argumentative. That's kind of yesterday's news.

Quote - Nope - Im not going to try to change you or your answers Connie.  It makes absolutely NO sense to me whatsoever why you are willing to invest so much time in energy in seeking out the negatives rather than the positives, but hey keep on keepin on if its workin for you. 

I think this part needs addressing too.

Now, harping on freebies is a sore spot with me especially since I used to get 'hate mail' of sorts for not allowing my freebies to be used commercially without asking for specific permission. Listed as non commercial only, and the readme says "Commercial licenses granted on case by case basis, please contact me'. That was mean and not nice of me to give a conditional gift and how I should be ashamed of myself, and how reading the readmes was too much to ask, and how I was mean to begrudge people possibly winning a $20 gift certificate for enterin a render in a contest (cause that too may be construed as commercial usage)' was the gist of several site mails I got. After a few site mails like that I finally asked rendo admins if that kind of site mail was acceptable, and asked them to contact the person(s) sending that that is not acceptable use of site mail. I haven't seen anyone else speak up about it, but if it had happened to me, I imahine I'm not the only one.

So, as I said earlier in one of my posts, agressive criticizing of freebies may hit a lot of people's raw nerve around here (me including). You're complaining I haven't read and taken into the account everyting you said, well, apparently, neither have you. Your assesment that I seek the negative, as if it's some sort of a bad and purposeful activity is wrong.

I don't seek it out, when it's a sore subject, things resonate with the past negative crap and it's hard to bypass it. (Much like it's hard for me to bypass kitty pictures on the positive side) You know, like after you get hit a few times in a certain situation, you come to expect to getting hit again in the same situation. On one hand you want me to take in the account other peoples feelings, but you discount mine. It doesn't work that way.

Notice that I'm not advocating that everyone should be nicey nice all the time. All I'm saying is that if someone comes towards me screaming, cussing and arms flailing, they're goiong to get punched or subdued before I ask what's the matter. And depending on my mood and circumstances, I may not ask what's the matter.

If you only read what I wrote, you'd agree......

Your explaination is reasonable Connie.  Im glad we could get back to more civilized terms with this =D  I'm going to maintain my point of view on the clarity requested but I respect your situation as well.

p.s. RE your last post Connie, look at the link that nyguy posted and you will get it

If you only read what I wrote, you'd agree......

I do. and can understand why you feel strongly about this issue.
Yes there are jerks out there, and sometimes you do have to bark, overall though I find most mails ask for permission politely and say thanks. 

My approach is if they behave like a spoilt brat they don't get.
Good manners get results. Simple as that.   

well, anyway, I haven't read the other messages in this thread, but the kitty in the sweater
was very cute IMVHO.

Quote - If you only read what I wrote, you'd agree......

I do. and can understand why you feel strongly about this issue.
Yes there are jerks out there, and sometimes you do have to bark, overall though I find most mails ask for permission politely and say thanks. 

My approach is if they behave like a spoilt brat they don't get.
Good manners get results. Simple as that.   

Exactly!  Unfortunately, I've seen too many jerk type approaches when it comes to freestuf to care to see past another one - whether they have a valid point or not.

If they were a marketplace customer, with that kind of an approach, I'd immediately refund their money, and discourage them from buying my stuff so I don't have to deal with the uncivil attitude.

Most businesses get to refuse service to unruly customers. Why should freebies be any different.

Quote - Your explaination is reasonable Connie.  Im glad we could get back to more civilized terms with this =D  I'm going to maintain my point of view on the clarity requested but I respect your situation as well.

p.s. RE your last post Connie, look at the link that nyguy posted and you will get it

I'm familiar with the link nyguy posted. http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2731924

Noone is arguing that a polite or decent business-like requests for clarity should be ignored.
Get it bloody right doens't fall in either one of those categories in my book.
It falls in the 'if you're going to cuss and scream in my face category for a little mistake I may have made, get lost' category.
At least it does in my book, and since I'm one of the freebie creators whom should listen and accomodate the reqiest, how it comes across to me and other freebie providers, it does matter.

Anyway, I suspect if other people have been exposed to the kind of treatment I have, with respect of listing your freebies non-commercial when some rights are reserved, I can understand why some of them are not listing them under non commercial.
Probably don't care to deal with being seen as stingy and bad guys.

I was trying to clear up the "I don't get it"  as I thought it referred to the knitted sweaters part.  Which is in that link - idk maybe Im confused again

 so getting back to the problem, would most of the users (not freeestuff makers) like to see a not for commercial render rather than not for commercial use label on the item prior to download?
I would.
Love esther

Quote -  so getting back to the problem, would most of the users (not freeestuff makers) like to see a not for commercial render rather than not for commercial use label on the item prior to download?
I would.

What if the 'freebie' is a p3do explorer, or a python script?

What if I repackage a number of downloaded textures and load them up on peer to peer? I mean, I'm not selling them.

Maybe it should be spelled out on the freebie pages: redistribution not allowed, unless the creator of the freebies specifically allows redistribution in the EULA/readme.

For myself, such a clause would be redundant; I assume that "commercial USE" and "non-commercial USE" is about creating renders/images/animations, NOT about redistribution. I treat freebies as if they were commercial items that I acquired the USAGE right of, not DISTRIBUTION rights - those remain with the creator of the item, no matter what.

In addition to commercial and non-commercial renders, I allow redistribution of my freebies: you can read that in the readme files. Which means that I EXTEND the rights that the downloader has from the default implied by the "use" checkboxes.

In my opinion, that would be a good way to do things in the freebies section: the commercial/non commercial use options give the downloader a set of default rights that can be extended by the freebie creator, but cannot be limited by the creator.

So if a freebie creator wishes to limit commercial use, he could mark it as "non-commercial", and extend the rights in the details section, for example "commercial renders only with permission from the creator"

But as long as freebie uploaders do not correctly label their freebies, there will be no good solution. Whatever labeling system Renderosity freestuff uses, the responsiblity for correct labeling is ours (freebie makers).

 I so agree with that.  Why can't all that stuff be in the readme, and the important thing to the mainstream user before download ie can it be used for commercial render or not, be the clearly visible thing before we download.
I had a really paranoid thought.  Is it possible that some free stuff makers, actually want people to inadvertantly download things they don't want to use or might have to write to the free stuff maker asking permission so that the maker might have a chance of selling the thing or asking for credits?  Or they just get more hits to their website and the person might then see something else that they do want to buy?

If someone wants to use my stuff for a relatively significant commercial use, I want to at the minimum be able to know about it. Ask for credit if there is space for credits (like if it's used in animation or a short film). Or if it's to be used somewhere as a fairly significant piece of a package, where sizeable sales are expected, then I may even ask for royalties.

Why? Because as sa part of offering the freebie, I want to promote my work. If whomever is creating a finished piece 'needs' in part my work to create the finished product, then I'd like to get proportional credit and exposure (within reason).

It's not meant to limit small time hobbyists from making a few psp tubes or preventing them from casing in a gift certificate they may win here and there. This is where 'giving back to the community' comes into play.

Also, I do architectural visualizations for work... should I release any freebies related to that, what I don't want to do is find myself in a position of helping my competitors (outside of poserdom), because my non commercial license is not limited to just poser or hobby 3D community.

Lot of people whom put freebies as links to their personal and for sale sites do that to give their site exposure, of course. That's just marketing. My freebies don't do this, but who knows, sometimes in the future they may. Right now, with mine, when you click on the download, you get a download, not an external link.

I've seen people whom adamantly claim they're giving back to the community and have no other motivations and shun the idea of self promotion and have their own webspace, but instead of giving you direct download, they still make you go through a few pages on their own website till you find the freebie. :woot:   Go figure.

Quote - I was trying to clear up the "I don't get it"  as I thought it referred to the knitted sweaters part.  Which is in that link - idk maybe Im confused again

Han, there were several comments that you made, that irked me. At the one in question I just finally decided to say something sarcastic in return. I wasn't in the mood to argue point by point.

w/e I give...
I was actually saying something completely friendly there, but Im not going to try to explain it over and over

 i think model makers should be able to ask for whatever they like in return for allowing a user to make a render with their model - be it money, credits, or whatever.  i just think people should be able to clearly see the product is not for commercial render very clearly PRIOR to download. ie it shouldn't just say "not for commercial" because some  people take that to mean not selling the mesh but they assume renders are their own.  it should say not for commercial render.  the readme can contain what people can and can't do with the mesh itself as that part will not be relevant to the vast majority of our users as we are not mesh sellers.
love esther

Quote - SoulTaker is 100% right,  It is VERY frustrating to go through the Freebies section, find somethig useful that says it's okay for Commercial use, then you download it only to read some comment in the Read Me file that says, "Oh no, I'm too stupid to put this in the right category, what I meant to say was that this is NOT okay for commercial use."  Just say so up front and I won't download or use it.  

Okay. Yes, I'm ranting.  But it is NOT too much to ask that someone properly categorize their work.  Now, if the work falls into a murky category, that's a different issue.  But if you don't want it used commercially, then just say so.  The issue has NOTHING to do with whether there should be freebies or not (man, some of you are off on tangents).  The ONLY issue is: Please label them correctly in the first place!  PLEASE!

---

By the way, I posed my one Freebie because I thought I'd share something just to be nice. I needed some dice for an image, couldn't find what I wanted, so I made some and then shared them with others who might need them. Are they that great?  No, not really, but apparently 200+ people thought they were worth looking at since I uploaded them four years ago.  And yes, I allow commercial use.

---

Miss Nancy:  "give the freebie creator a percentage of sales for any commercial use"

No problem!  Let's see, my book retails for $24.95 and has 178 pages. I downloaded a small element to go into one of the 85 images appearing in the book (or should we just limit it to the 27 CGI images in the book?). Anyway, that image where the freebie prop was used takes up about 5-7% of the space in the image... but on the other hand, it's 1 out of about 30 elements used in the image - the others were paid for); or do we consider that the entire image takes up about 1/3 of the page?  So, what's a fair amount?  And, of course, we should base this on Net sales not Gross sales, so we should probably cut that by 60%. 

Please, let me know what you think a fair percentage is for including a freebie spitoon in the back of a bar scene in a Western gaming book.

Giving the freebie creator a copy of the book would be fair compensation.

I've come across that in readme files too. Make up your damn minds. No one is going to steal it, it's just a freebie. Im tired of downloading stuff says for commercial use until you open up the read me. I only want to render it, not use the damn file for anything else. If you are that paranoid then don't make freebies. There's no point in sharing a freebie if it can't be used in commercial renders.

I'm glad I make my own now. Saves me the headache of figuring out if I can use it in a published render or not.

*""If you are that paranoid then don't make freebies.""

*Far as I can tell it is ONLY ppl in the internet art community that act like this anyway.  I often go on photography trips with my daughter.  We have never once had a person tell us we could not take a picture of something if it was going to in any way whatsoever earn us money.  I understand that there are some government buildings that have that type of restriction - but we all know how the government is.  We have photographed, people, buildings, sculptures, gardens, a Buddhist temple being built - and when it was bombed.

I can't even begin to think of all the things OWNED by other people that were in those photos.  Heck I just posted a photo yesterday of my view from my window.  The photo contains 3 other peoples cars, and two other peoples houses. 

Many of my daughters photos will go into a portfolio which will later be used to get her a job.  Some of them have been published in yearbooks for her school.  (Which charges money for the yearbooks).

I honestly don't feel that people have any room at all to limit the useage regarding commercial or non commercial images.  If I buy a shirt can I take a picture of it????  The two have absolutely nothing in common.  You build the model, it's your model - nobody is disagreeing.  Nobody should sell your model - or distribute it in any tangible form - but a PICTURE of your model?  Now thats just going kinda far.  Too far imo. 

Dajadues:

Quote - There's no point in sharing a freebie if it can't be used in commercial renders.

Just to correct you: there's no point for you to download a freebie if it can't be used in commercial renders.  Speak for yourself.

Quote - I honestly don't feel that people have any room at all to limit the useage regarding commercial or non commercial images. 

Copyright law does not agree with you.

Quote -

Quote - I honestly don't feel that people have any room at all to limit the useage regarding commercial or non commercial images. 

Copyright law does not agree with you.

So true. Well oh well, some people will learn the hard way.

Yeah I think it's probably something Im going to have to research thoroughly.  I did read up yesterday somewhat on it, and in the copyright laws forum.  I think actually that the real answer is that we don't know and until it is taken into court we wont know.  I suppose there are some who probably don't even understand what Im talking about so Ill go over it again.

Someone creates an item - a THING.  They own copyright to that THING
another person takes a picture of that THING - is it legal to take a photograph of a THING another person owns copyright to?  Now if the THING is the center of focus, - hmm but what if the THING is a background object just in the image?

There was a thread a few months back something about Ford requiring that no pictures be made of thier cars.  Did they win that?  I don't know - it seems to me a case like that would take precident here.

Like I said if this is not true than I have something like 100 gigs worth of pictures that infringe on peoples copyright.  If they grew the tree do they have the copyright to it?  How about individual blades of grass?  If its not on my property then I don't own it or the copyright to it.  Any vehicles, background scenery when I took photos at family gatherings - picnic tables that I didn't build myself.

I actually don't think that copyright law is very clear in this particular area, it simply doesn't make any sense.  I think whether or not it agrees with me would have to be determined in court.  If anyone has any case links I'd love to see them.

Found this:

http://www.danheller.com/biz-trademarks.html

For this situation Im relating a "render"  to a "photo"

Scroll down to the area where it says "Photos of Copyrighted items"

I think the water appears fairly muddy here and 3D isn't even something that is being discussed at any sites when I looked for this information.  I think it goes even further than what is being discussed here, like it says in that article, does the render effect the value of the model for the original copyright owner?  Well if this model figures primarily in a series of renders or in an animation where the model is depicted negatively maybe it would? 

Here's a quote from that section:

""The protections that copyrights provide usually come down to some economic measurement: is the display of a photo somehow having an economic effect on the copyright owner's ability to sell his product? Does it diminish its value? Similarly, is the use of the photo somehow enabling the user to benefit economically? That is, just as the "good will" of a well-recognized logo may help with the perceived value of a product that bears it, a "good design" (regardless of whether it's recognized) can have a positive economic effect on the user's ability to sell his wares. The question of whether any given use violates a copyright is judged on how closely one can attribute the use of the photo of the item in question with any of the hypothetical effects listed above. ""*

US Copyright Law: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/
Copyright office with FAQ's: http://www.copyright.gov/
Wikipedia on copyrights: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright
What is Copyright Protection - in plain English: http://www.whatiscopyright.org/
Cornell Law school on Coyrights and Intellecual rights: http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Copyright
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17

http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/241476.html

Search on copyright law: http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=copyright+law&fr=fptb-&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

Search in Intellectual Property: http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGkyMyHxJIoY4ABQhXNyoA?p=Intellectual+Property&fr=fptb-&ei=UTF-8

Search on Copyright bundle of rights: http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGkj6bHxJINWcB8RRXNyoA?p=copyright+bundle+of+rights&y=Search&fr=fptb-&ei=UTF-8

Creative commons licensing: http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGkm2fHxJI43wAjftXNyoA?fr2=sg-gac&sado=1&p=creative%20commons%20license&fr=fptb-&ei=UTF-8

Happy reading!
The point is not to end up in court. Once you are in court, your house, sanity and well being is at stake even if you have a good case.  Prudent artists and business people work on avoiding that.

Quote - Found this:

http://www.danheller.com/biz-trademarks.html

For this situation Im relating a "render"  to a "photo"

However, when you take a photo of an item, it is commonly understood that the item photographed is not something you created.
When you render out an image of an object, in most of the 3D world the implication is that the depicted models are your own work too. If they are not, sources need to be cited, otherwise, allowing people to think it is 100% your work, and not citing sources could be considered plagiarisam. Even if the depicted items have allowance for commercial use.

What you need to read up on first is the concept of a bundle of rights, as it relates to creative works and individual property. Creator of any original piece has a legal right to define which rights of use they allow and under what terms of use.

Then you need to read up on derivative works and what governs derivative works. Rendering made out of partly freebies, partly purchased items, partly your own falls under derivative works, which means that there are some rights out of that bundle of rights that you don't legally own, even though you made the rendering.

From what I read through some of those and the link I provided, there seems to be some grounds for fair use.  the 3D thing = real life thing and 3D render = real life photo is I think where the water really gets unclear.
Are they the same? 

I think you're right Connie that the real idea is to stay out of court for most people.  On the other hand if the idea is just to be safe because nobody knows the real answer than should we be acting as if we do know the answer?  Maybe it should be said that we don't know but we like to err on the safe side?  From what I read it does appear that parts of copyright law agree with me.  It appears that it is on a case by case basis. 

Frankly I take the Rosity selected values at face-value. If the uploader chose commercial use OK, then they've got to live with it. I rarely go into readmes unless there's a problem with the model.

*""Frankly I take the Rosity selected values at face-value. If the uploader chose commercial use OK, then they've got to live with it.""

*You make a good point.