is it me or is the marketplace littered with products which are clearly rip offs of stuff in the movies and suchlike, some unchanged or barely changed names.

Is this normal? I would have thought that this was not in the least bit appropriate. I'm not naming any products, as I've no axe to grind with anyone. Just thought that since the community as a whole is very keen on protecting their own works and products that copying something from a film would be at odds with that position.

John

Fugazi (without the aid of a safety net)

https://www.facebook.com/Fugazi3D

tis an ongoing bugbear of mine as well.. and it's not going to change mores the pity.

soon as you raise the point, you get told about copyrights and trademarks and tradedress and how small changes etcetcetc

but nothing on the ethics of copying something from a movie etc and then selling it.

I guess it's because people like to recreate stuff from their favourite movies. I see it as fan art more than as a rip off. Then again, I'm known to make everything and anything into Harry Potter characters, so I'm most likely biased on this one L My own Burlap Buddy is also very heavily influenced by the little guys in "9", that's no secret either. I made it because I loved that movie and figured others might, too :)

Is it any different than to attempt to make celebrity clones? Not to me :) (but then again, I don't know how you feel about those)

If I knew how to believably scale legs ect in a pose / morph file, I would have attempted one of the Avatar guys as well :)

I'm not going to say anything in either direction (as apparently my opinion differs with that of the admin), but if you have concerns about a product, I'd recommend an email to copyrights@renderosity.com or store@renderosity.com

Sitemail | Freestuff | Craftythings | Youtube|

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it into a fruit salad.

Quote - tis an ongoing bugbear of mine as well.. and it's not going to change mores the pity.

soon as you raise the point, you get told about copyrights and trademarks and tradedress and how small changes etcetcetc

but nothing on the ethics of copying something from a movie etc and then selling it.

I dont really object to it, if it's a movie someone has taken as ispiration for something, but an out and out copy seems oddly discordant.

There are all sorts of rules about image content and suchlike, but a blatantly copied product can be sold in the marketplace without a problem.

It's a tricky one, if people and fans buy the product and are happy, then there is clearly a market for them, however just because the copyright holder is sufficiently removed from the community
is it ok to do it?

I guess it puts the onus on the copyright holder to object to a product, which is so unlikely no one worries about it.

I don't know the specific law that covers this area, but I suspect that if Rendo host it, and profit from it, that they would be liable in some way. Especially since all products are vetted by them first.

John

Fugazi (without the aid of a safety net)

https://www.facebook.com/Fugazi3D

It's a tricky one, if people and fans buy the product and are happy, then there is clearly a market for them, however just because the copyright holder is sufficiently removed from the community
is it ok to do it?"

bingo! Ethics ;)

Quote - I guess it's because people like to recreate stuff from their favourite movies. I see it as fan art more than as a rip off. Then again, I'm known to make everything and anything into Harry Potter characters, so I'm most likely biased on this one L My own Burlap Buddy is also very heavily influenced by the little guys in "9", that's no secret either. I made it because I loved that movie and figured others might, too :)

Is it any different than to attempt to make celebrity clones? Not to me :) (but then again, I don't know how you feel about those)

If I knew how to believably scale legs ect in a pose / morph file, I would have attempted one of the Avatar guys as well :)

Being inspired or influenced is one thing, that's a big part of creating for most arty types. A complete copy is something else.

Celeb clones is a wierd one, I have no idea about that one :) I don't think it is much different to copying a design, but I don't think mother nature is too jealous of her copyright rights :)

John.

Fugazi (without the aid of a safety net)

https://www.facebook.com/Fugazi3D

Quote - I'm not going to say anything in either direction (as apparently my opinion differs with that of the admin), but if you have concerns about a product, I'd recommend an email to copyrights@renderosity.com or store@renderosity.com

Hey Jen :) I thought you was an Admin? anyway think I'll give that a miss, since it don't take a genius to attribute any concerns raised in my direction.

Besides, it's not for me to impose a morality upon any vendors, in my opinion, if Rendo ok it then thats that.

I was simply confused by the contradictory position it seems to indicate.

John.

Fugazi (without the aid of a safety net)

https://www.facebook.com/Fugazi3D

Nope ;) I"m a Senior Moderator, which only means that I've been here for way too long to get away with saying I've retained any sanity :P

I'd contribute more..but, well, anyone who's discussed the ethics/legal side of the business with me ever knows my opinion, lol, and it's not in-line with the admin, so that's about all I can say without starting anything.

Sitemail | Freestuff | Craftythings | Youtube|

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it into a fruit salad.

I don't know, John. The watchdogs that be sometimes drop the ball where some fo these products are concerned. It might be out of pure ignorance that questionable content do make it to the marketplace, but I have seen several products appear, stay awhile, then mysteriously disappear very soon afterwards. Fortunately, Rendo seems to comply very well with pulling those violations. But, again, how much of the game is based on legal knowledge. If you clearly create and distribute content for profit without due permission and license, you will find yourself in more than local hot water.

Copying IS easier than doing an original design that might be ignored or unbought. From a merchant perspective, doing something you like AND is popular is more likely to sell.

Personally, I don't want to use any clone item because it's a clone item. If it is recognizable as coming from source material-- it SEVERELY limits my ability to use it in original material I create. Changing textures will only go so far. If I have to rebuild something, so it's not immediately recognizable, I might as well as not bought it in the first place! Cheaper,too! :laugh:

I find myself to be obsessed about not using ANYTHING right out of the box without modifying it in some way that makes it less recognizable as what it was to begin with. I'm not profficient enough a modeler to turn out all original stuff everyday.

Bottom line is, I want all original stuff. If I see something inspired by something but is not immediately recognizable--THAT is the stuff I buy!

I cannot save the world. Only my little piece of it. If we all act together, we can save the world.--Nelson Mandela
An inconsistent hobgoblin is the fool of little minds
Taking "Just do it" to a whole new level!

Quote - Nope ;) I"m a Senior Moderator, which only means that I've been here for way too long to get away with saying I've retained any sanity :P

I'd contribute more..but, well, anyone who's discussed the ethics/legal side of the business with me ever knows my opinion, lol, and it's not in-line with the admin, so that's about all I can say without starting anything.

A Senior Moderator eh? a grand position indeed :) and yes you probably have been here way to long to retain too much sanity ;p

I'm slightly curious about the much mentioned Admin, my paranoia bone is twitching like crazy :)

John.

Fugazi (without the aid of a safety net)

https://www.facebook.com/Fugazi3D

Quote - I don't know, John. The watchdogs that be sometimes drop the ball where some fo these products are concerned. It might be out of pure ignorance that questionable content do make it to the marketplace, but I have seen several products appear, stay awhile, then mysteriously disappear very soon afterwards. Fortunately, Rendo seems to comply very well with pulling those violations. But, again, how much of the game is based on legal knowledge. If you clearly create and distribute content for profit without due permission and license, you will find yourself in more than local hot water.

It is of course possible that the person checking products for release doesn't know about the source it may be copied from, a bit of human error is always possible. Not everyone sees every film or reads every book.

I guess from a merchant point of view you take your chances, from Rendos point of view I can see them being concerned about it because the legal penatlies are probably terrifying.

I dunno, for me if someone is making a quality copy of something, it seems a shame not to put those talents to more original use.

John

Fugazi (without the aid of a safety net)

https://www.facebook.com/Fugazi3D

Quote - Copying IS easier than doing an original design that might be ignored or unbought. From a merchant perspective, doing something you like AND is popular is more likely to sell.

Personally, I don't want to use any clone item because it's a clone item. If it is recognizable as coming from source material-- it SEVERELY limits my ability to use it in original material I create. Changing textures will only go so far. If I have to rebuild something, so it's not immediately recognizable, I might as well as not bought it in the first place! Cheaper,too! :laugh:

I find myself to be obsessed about not using ANYTHING right out of the box without modifying it in some way that makes it less recognizable as what it was to begin with. I'm not profficient enough a modeler to turn out all original stuff everyday.

Bottom line is, I want all original stuff. If I see something inspired by something but is not immediately recognizable--THAT is the stuff I buy!

It seems to me that as a merchant here (or anywhere) you are kind of expected to be somethign of a multi talented genius. A designer to come up with original exciting projects, a modeller who can realise those designs, a texturer who can paint them and a marketer who can sell them to the world, among other things :)

It seems to me that a talented marketer could probably sell alot of a mediocre product, whereas a great modeller could probably sell a few of a terrific product, while a great designer will probably sell nothing at all.

How many of us are all three, yet how many of us work together to get all the skills required?

John.

Fugazi (without the aid of a safety net)

https://www.facebook.com/Fugazi3D

I used to be a fashion designer in the garment industry.
Corporate would go to the haute couture fashion shows, make a purchase, bring back a garment and tell us to "knock it off". It was not only legal, but a huge part of their business.
When it comes to fashion, there is very little that has not been done before. The originality comes from how the model "looks" in it, the accessories and composition of the image as artists that we create.
I am not justifying or condoning this. I am simply pointing out how the fashion industry works and the legality of it that I have seen.
cheerio
lululee

Quote - I guess it's because people like to recreate stuff from their favourite movies. I see it as fan art more than as a rip off. Then again, I'm known to make everything and anything into Harry Potter characters, so I'm most likely biased on this one L My own Burlap Buddy is also very heavily influenced by the little guys in "9", that's no secret either. I made it because I loved that movie and figured others might, too :)

Is it any different than to attempt to make celebrity clones? Not to me :) (but then again, I don't know how you feel about those)

If I knew how to believably scale legs ect in a pose / morph file, I would have attempted one of the Avatar guys as well :)

I see requests in the forums all the time for video game character textures, movie props especially vehicles, and celeb morphs. I neither supply items nor direct these requests to places that they can find what they are after but it hasn't stopped me from using ST or TNG items that are in the free stuff here. Back in the P4 days everyone wanted Laura Croft Tomb Raider clones. There were a lot of them here at one point. I've never used one mostly because I don't render those types of scenes but I have used the side arms that were made for her.

Like Trekkie, I believe in fan art. I have rendered a lot of it over the years. BUT In the old days we had to do it in 2D or maybe dress up and do video. Now we model it in 3D and to me there lies the crux of the matter. Good modeling and texturing can make an object that is virtually identical to the original but it is not the original and as long as you do not portray it as such I see no problem. Where I do see a grey area that has to be watched is when a person takes a resource such as a mesh or a texture; makes almost no modification to the original and then portrays it as an original work and puts it up for sale. That to me is a problem. One has to remember though that as Poser users every one of us has modified a mesh or retextured an object. It is the nature of the beast that we use to make our art.
pdg

Quote - I'm not going to say anything in either direction...

And you knowing when to do that is what makes you such a good Moderator. :thumbupboth:

You two take care... :wub:

As far as the topic goes, I have mixed views, myself. Free fan stuff and celebrity look-alikes are fine, (a friend's sister used to work as a Cher impersonator) but if it 's too close, and it's for sale, that dosn't feel right to me, but that's a judgement to be made by the copyright holder.

I saw a recent Poser character whose promos were very close to another vendor's promos for an earlier product, but since the original vendor apparently hasn't complained, it must be OK...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Wisdom of bagginsbill:

"Oh - the manual says that? I have never read the manual - this must be why."
“I could buy better software, but then I'd have to be an artist and what's the point of that?"
"The [R'osity Forum Search] 'Default' label should actually say 'Don't Find What I'm Looking For'".
bagginsbill's Free Stuff... https://web.archive.org/web/20201010171535/https://sites.google.com/site/bagginsbill/Home

Quote - I used to be a fashion designer in the garment industry.
Corporate would go to the haute couture fashion shows, make a purchase, bring back a garment and tell us to "knock it off". It was not only legal, but a huge part of their business.
When it comes to fashion, there is very little that has not been done before. The originality comes from how the model "looks" in it, the accessories and composition of the image as artists that we create.
I am not justifying or condoning this. I am simply pointing out how the fashion industry works and the legality of it that I have seen.
cheerio
lululee

I too spent many years in the rag trade and completely understand and agree with you. A big part of my work was dye matching and print design so we could replicate the fashions of others and produce cloth that had yet to be copied by the other houses. As long as they did not use our labels or we theirs there was no legal problem. It was only when "knock offs" were portrayed as originals that there was an issue.
pdg

Quote - > Quote - Nope ;) I"m a Senior Moderator, which only means that I've been here for way too long to get away with saying I've retained any sanity :P

I'd contribute more..but, well, anyone who's discussed the ethics/legal side of the business with me ever knows my opinion, lol, and it's not in-line with the admin, so that's about all I can say without starting anything.

A Senior Moderator eh? a grand position indeed :) and yes you probably have been here way to long to retain too much sanity ;p

I'm slightly curious about the much mentioned Admin, my paranoia bone is twitching like crazy :)

John.

Mouse over the "About Us" tab up top, click on "The Team" at the bottom ;) Admin are listed at the bottom ;)

WandW - Thanks! And we're doing well for now...just REALLY IMPATIENT AND UNCOMFORTABLE, lol. But, that's par for the course, lol.

Sitemail | Freestuff | Craftythings | Youtube|

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it into a fruit salad.

If it's a blatant rip-off. It snuck through because someone wasn't aware it was a ripoff. Report it to admin and it will get removed just like the complete rip-off of RoboCop was once it was pointed out. (And Yeah I wanted that RoboCop but I couldn't afford it! But BOY Was it accurate!)

Well as an example, I made my Sevvie character - and no it does NOT look like Movie!Snape at all (at least not in my eyes) but I still had to rename it from the original "Severus" to Sevvie once someone found it too close. The amusing thing is I nowhere in the promo hinted anything about it being "Snape" or mentioned anything Harry Potter-ish at all. I did have a rendition of a Morsmordre in the background though, but again, nothing outright mentioned.

I was told it had "slipped through" because my tester weren't familiar with the Potterverse. And it's fine with me; I'm probably one of the only people in the world (or os it seems) who has never seen nor read Lord of the Rings - but I know even Daz made their High Fantasy based on it - I would never have noticed that myself though, I was just told that it was.

I don't think my Sevvie is a "Blatant ripoff" at all, he's more my interpretation of the BOOK character. Sure it's still "fanart" in a way,but it's not a Rickman clone and it doesn't even look like JKR's early drawings of Him either. It's MY interpretation of a big-nosed, pale, skinny dark-haired guy who likes to dress in robes L

So is that a rip off?

What defines a rip off? Is it like the difference between being "easy" and being a whore? One charges for the service, the other does not?

Is money the issue?

(and I'm genuinely curious and not trying to defend myself or tout my own horn or anything. Just curious because IMO the Poser galleries would be pretty empty if you couldn't use some clone of something, be it a celebrity morph, a prop or a fancy dress.

I'm not a designer. I never claimed to be. So I can't "just model " a dress in my own design.. Or rather I can, it's one of those that looks like they were sewn from a flour sack... Should I ever model something fashionable, I would need a reference - especially since fashion is something I'm SO not interested in...

Poser is - among other things - about creating believable pictures. To make a believable Sci-Fi setting you'd have to use something that signals "Future/Sci-Fi" - and it's becoming hard to find something that hasn't been done to death in SOME or other movie L

And when I make fan art pictures with Snape, I WANT it to look like Snape and I WANT the surroundings to look Hogwarts-y. I'm always checking new scenes and props for any usability based on how "hogwarts" they are... And surely I'm not the only one making THAT kind of pictures?!

The only real way to rell is when one person takes the other to court and its fought out there.
I report these issues to the copyright holder if I believe a violation has occured. Then its up to them how they proceed.

I avoid the Harry Potter stuff because it is fine for some artists but it generated a bunch of kiddie porn that was a pain to get cleaned up, not here and not at rotica that I know of. It is clearly not the responsibility of a character creator if that figure is misused but you know its going to happen.

I think this discussion needs to take account of whether an item is legally available from the originitaor of an artical at a reasonable price. eg. I have been considering whether or not to model the entire bridge from the the new star treck film and release it as a freebie. The makers of the film have not made and released such a 3D model so would that be unethical or illegal?

I believe that some ideas, such as Star Treck - the original series, have become part of the world culture and should be beyond the creators ability to impose copyright. The bible can't be copyrighted, can it?

I think that in the European Union it is now unlawful to exploit the image of another person - not sure though

Apple_UK, that's not actually how copyright law works, and most of copyright law actually does extend across international borders with acts such as the Berne Convention.

And, yes, there ARE versions of the bible that are protected under copyright law. The actual words in it are not copyrighted, however the collection of the book itself, including added footnotes and study guides, are protected.

Copyright is meant to protect the original creator, not to give rights to anyone wanting to ride on the coat tails of the creator. Paramount has been known in the past to be VERY strict about their copyrights regarding Star Trek, so I would venture into that territory with care.

In the end, this is more about ethics. Is it right to take someone else's hard work and creativity and create something based on it? Some say it's ok, some say that it's not. Whether or not it's right to take and convert something that one entity has created from one medium to another (by convert, I don't mean take a tangible item and make it 3D. I mean even the act of taking a 2D image and using it as a reference to create the same object in 3D, and vice versa) is a highly debatable subject (and you guys are free to discuss it at length in the Copyright and Ethics forum ;) You'll be surprised at what people from other areas of the community have to say about the subject!). The legal end is, if you take from a big enough player, you may end up being taken to court, no matter where you are. To tell yourself otherwise is lying to yourself.

Sitemail | Freestuff | Craftythings | Youtube|

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it into a fruit salad.

Attached Link: http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

Here is a good link to learn more about what copyright is and isn't.

Sitemail | Freestuff | Craftythings | Youtube|

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it into a fruit salad.

Hello JenX:

I wasn't sure about the legality or the ethics so I have refrained from making it. And you are right - it is someone else's hard work, and investment.

Quote -
Corporate would go to the haute couture fashion shows, make a purchase, bring back a garment and tell us to "knock it off". It was not only legal, but a huge part of their business.
lululee

Just to underscore lulu and parkdale, its a practice in many businesses. Industrial espionage is here to stay.
Movies like "Snakes on a Train", "Transmorphers" and "30,000 Leagues Under the Sea" are all capitalizing on the existence of the original but couldn't replace or exist without the source.

Fugazi's original thread subject (funny considering the meaning of your login name and Simpson-style avatar) (oh, I mean that lol-funny not suspiciously-hypocritical-funny) (but I digress)

I don't know which products you mean specifically, that's OK. I did buy a morph that clearly was meant to be Dame Judy and while it is a really good older female morph and texture always have qualms using it because it is so her.

To me, there is nothing wrong with riding the stream in the direction that the market is flowing.

In the computer biz, on the internet, there's just a lot of plain out and out thievery. They know it. They don't care. They are in it for the money not the character-building-Ayn-Rand-reading-ethics of knowing themselves as a creator of an original idea.

I, too, have to earn money but I can't drop what I'm doing and start modeling scimitars just because Prince of Persia is going to open. But seeing it now in print doesn't seem like such a bad idea.

OK, maybe the horse is dead, I'll stop. : )

actually, I see it as the other way around; one day I woke up and realized all the Hollywood movies were based on comic books...;)

So the Film industry seems to get more 'Poserlike' every day...;)

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

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

Quote - actually, I see it as the other way around; one day I woke up and realized all the Hollywood movies were based on comic books...;)

So the Film industry seems to get more 'Poserlike' every day...;)

The difference is Hollywood actually pays the licensing fees to use said comic books.

Quote -
Fugazi's original thread subject (funny considering the meaning of your login name and Simpson-style avatar) (oh, I mean that lol-funny not suspiciously-hypocritical-funny) (but I digress)

I'm slightly curious as to which meaning of the word Fugazi you are using there :) there are a few. Also I didn't choose it for it's meaning :) well mostly not, it's my favourite Marillion song :)

John

Fugazi (without the aid of a safety net)

https://www.facebook.com/Fugazi3D

Quote -
And, yes, there ARE versions of the bible that are protected under copyright law. The actual words in it are not copyrighted, however the collection of the book itself, including added footnotes and study guides, are protected.

I belive all modern versions of the Bible are copyrighted. The original Greek/Hebrew/Latin/Aramaic scriptures of course aren't, but the translations are able to be copyrighted by the translators...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Wisdom of bagginsbill:

"Oh - the manual says that? I have never read the manual - this must be why."
“I could buy better software, but then I'd have to be an artist and what's the point of that?"
"The [R'osity Forum Search] 'Default' label should actually say 'Don't Find What I'm Looking For'".
bagginsbill's Free Stuff... https://web.archive.org/web/20201010171535/https://sites.google.com/site/bagginsbill/Home

As I understand it, you can't copyright an idea (story, character, title, names, etc), but you can trademark one. Specific comic books are copyrighted, but I expect that the characters are trademarked, and trademark laws seems, to me, to be far more weighted in favour of the owner of the trademark. (I'm still remembering Thomas Dolby being successfully sued by Dolby for using their trademarked name, even though he was only using the name he was born with).

So, I'm not sure whether the dark glasses and leather trenchcoats from the Matrix could be copyrighted, for example. Or that it would violate any laws to create content based on them. Unless, like the Superman outfit, those Matrix outfits are also trademarked.

I would think that would explain why there are a thousand look alike fashions available at Wal-Mart, but as soon as a manufacturer puts a copied label on a knock-off it becomes counterfeit and illegal because the label, not the design, is trademarked.

PoserPro 2014, PS CS5.5 Ext, Nikon D300. Win 8, i7-4770 @ 3.4 GHz, AMD Radeon 8570, 12 GB RAM.

[quoteI would think that would explain why there are a thousand look alike fashions available at Wal-Mart, but as soon as a manufacturer puts a copied label on a knock-off it becomes counterfeit and illegal because the label, not the design, is trademarked.

That's what Lulu and I said earlier. Also in fashion, print pattern and colour are also trademarked. With colour though only the name of the colour is trademarked not the actual colour itself. I could trademark "cranberry-orange red" but not actually the colour as you perceive it to be. At least that is my experience from the real world of fashion.
pdg

I preffer fantasy to scifi. I'm a huge Dungeons & Dragons nerd. So for years I've been making fantasy spaceships based on a D&D settings called "Spelljammer" :)

obviously I am NOT gonna sell 'em, jeesh, I just adore the beautiful ship designs, the imaginative concept of the setting, but I couldn't design those original ships: fantastic original artistry but..even they were part based on real life organisms like a nautilus

I take original gorgeous paitnings and make 'em into 3D objects with interiors, decks etc that "work"

original creators obviously didn't have 3D to work out what decks etc would really be plausible, but I can and do.
I do it for fun and to help fellow gamers :)

but...

copyright, IP etc is being abused by the corporations, I'm rally mad at that and scared of where it will go, it's sure not about protecting artists (corporations want eternal copyright..think about it. Even dictators eventually die, corporations do not. See Sony's DRM root kits, way coproates have corrupyted politics etc)

how in hellfire can you trademark/copyright a COMMON phrase, for pity's sake, eh? or genes?

stealing someon'es car is obviously heinous, but building it from a photo in 3D is meant ot be a crime!?

mad, all barking mad :/

"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 - > Quote -

Fugazi's original thread subject (funny considering the meaning of your login name and Simpson-style avatar) (oh, I mean that lol-funny not suspiciously-hypocritical-funny) (but I digress)

I'm slightly curious as to which meaning of the word Fugazi you are using there :) there are a few. Also I didn't choose it for it's meaning :) well mostly not, it's my favourite Marillion song :)

John

I've always liked it because it's one of my favorite bands, LOL

Sitemail | Freestuff | Craftythings | Youtube|

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it into a fruit salad.

Marillion, ah, when music was still mostly good :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7sIzWKHGwQ

"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!

try this one for size them Silver!
www.youtube.com/watch

I dont know if this has been said yet or not (sorry, guys, not wading through it all), but...

If you're creating stuff for fan art, have the decency to give it away for free. I have serious issues with folks who think it's okay to make a buck "appropriating" from a film when our own community cant wait to rush for the torches and pitchforks when a freckle from a skin texture shows up in someone else's work.

And yes, the "freckle" reference is real. To others who might remember, what was it, five years ago? Completely ruined the merchant in question, even though the evidence was scanty and specious at best.

docandraider.com -- the collected cartoons of Doc and Raider

Corporations as a rule don't judge their own potential or intended copyright violations by ethical standards... just by cost/benefit. Kinda like how drug companies calculate litigation attrition as a factor in dangerous drug releases (the plaintive and heirs die or run out of money before the judgment if you can string the case out long enough and if you must make a settlement you can just drag your feet paying it off over a decade or two or just flat out fail to comply) and the makers of the Pinto who decide that the wrongful death settlements at 100K each or so for maybe two dozen people burned to death was more cost effective then the $7 per unit production cost of making the car safer. Insurance companies make a practice of declining claims since each time they reject a claim half of policy holders abandon the effort... the standard is to "settle the claim at 50%-80% if the policy holder sticks out three efforts to decline the claim. BTW reading industry literature and stockholder reports you learn that 99% of the much vaunted "insurance fraud" is perpetrated by insurance agents rather than consumers. No real point here... just that I always find it interesting when this stuff is cast as an ethical rather than practical issue when the profit makers so far as I know only consider it from the economic vantage. If existing copyright and trademark standards were applied retroactively the art of the twentieth century would be pretty thinned out and there would be no public libraries but on the other hand we would also never have seen Microsoft get away with stealing the GUI Apple legally acquired from BELL Corp.

I would by no means recommend individuals apply the same ethical standards as corporations do... I only think the double standard is an interesting feature of our society.

Quote -
And yes, the "freckle" reference is real. To others who might remember, what was it, five years ago? Completely ruined the merchant in question, even though the evidence was scanty and specious at best.

I did a search and came up with one from '03. Oooff-ugly stuff... :sad:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Wisdom of bagginsbill:

"Oh - the manual says that? I have never read the manual - this must be why."
“I could buy better software, but then I'd have to be an artist and what's the point of that?"
"The [R'osity Forum Search] 'Default' label should actually say 'Don't Find What I'm Looking For'".
bagginsbill's Free Stuff... https://web.archive.org/web/20201010171535/https://sites.google.com/site/bagginsbill/Home

Yeah, it wasnt pleasant. It got incredibly stupid around here for a couple of weeks.

docandraider.com -- the collected cartoons of Doc and Raider

Yeah, copyright threads have a bit of nasty history around here. Clark 1.0.

Quote - Yeah, copyright threads have a bit of nasty history around here. Clark 1.0.

Ah the Stomping Foot incident L

Not sure what the freckle thing was unless it was the ****MeOK thing? Someone enlighten me PLZ! There has been so many of these cases over the past decade. I can't remember them all but now I'm curious L (the "glaring at a traffic accident" kind of curious, unfortunately. Can't help it. I AM one of those who glare at accidents...)

Quote - Personally, I don't want to use any clone item because it's a clone item. If it is recognizable as coming from source material-- it SEVERELY limits my ability to use it in original material I create.

I mostly agree. There are several exceptions in my mind. First, if it draws from multiple sources. For example, there are a lot of outfits which are clearly inspired by certain Anime and manga styles (the collars over the front of the face, the bared midriffs, the pointless buckles), but to me seem to be a mix of several sources inspiration. Second, I found myself wishing that I could find a certain very recognizable outfit (and no, it wasn't from Tomb raider) because I was working on a render of an RPG character of mine cos-playing. But that is clearly a corner case.

I wonder how much clone stuff is for erotic fantasy renders. I think Poser really got established as a product circa 1998 by people wanting to make renders of Agent Scully in the nude. I don't know for sure but I imagine there are more then a few renders of Princes Lea-slash-Darth Vador and Luke Skywalker-slash-Jojo Binks. When I saw the House/Hugh Laurie character in the store I was certain it was intended for prawn - but maybe not without Cuddy and Wilson.

"I wonder how much clone stuff is for erotic fantasy renders"

How much of Poser isnt used fo that? Damn little, I'm sure. It's cheap porn you can DIY. The bulk of women's items in the various stores notwithstanding (I mean, please - how much lingere does a girl need?), considering all the morphs available for just about every female mesh out there, as well as the ones that will take the toons and turn them into barely legal babes... well, the evidence pretty well speaks for itself, I think.

docandraider.com -- the collected cartoons of Doc and Raider

People probably want knock-offs and look-alikes. It's already been said here that people like to watch a movie and then try to render a scene from the movie. Gawd knows why, but they really do.

I used to visit the Daz3d site when I was a platinum member years ago, and I noticed their releases seemed timed perfectly with those of Hollywood. Very shortly after that the galleries were inevitably inundated with thematic renders of recent product.

I think the last time I even considered rejoining the PC club was when the forums/galleries were filled with dying Aslans. That changed my mind in a hurry. It was almost enough to make me lose my breakfast. I prefer Rendo's endless stream of latex hooker/pornstars, frankly. But I suspect it's exactly the same impulse driving both markets, each just servicing a somewhat different demographic.

Not that I'm immune. My favourite Daz clothing, by far, was the SP3 set "Celeste." I don't know why. But I made quite a few renders before the origin of the design for that set ever dawned on me.

PoserPro 2014, PS CS5.5 Ext, Nikon D300. Win 8, i7-4770 @ 3.4 GHz, AMD Radeon 8570, 12 GB RAM.

I think the last time I even considered rejoining the PC club was when the forums/galleries were filled with dying Aslans.

Huh????? WTF was that? I totally missed that... a Madame Butterfly revival?

Seems like a lot of Poser folk look down on people who use canned content and off the rack subject matter or themes. What is wrong with it? Van Gogh copied other artists and Gogain went all the way to Tahiti to paint from photographic postcards. If a bunch of hobby artists want to do movie theme stuff for fun that seems totally cool to me. Used to be completely respectable to watercolor etchings cut from books... you could even make a modest living selling them.

Quote - Paramount has been known in the past to be VERY strict about their copyrights regarding Star Trek, so I would venture into that territory with care.

The Star Trek and other movie stuff is extremely likely to be trademarked, meaning the owners have to take action to defend it or risk dilution.

I dont see how taking something in 2D (TV screen) and using it as reference for creating something in 3D can be considered copyright infringement. Its not like you hacked into ILM's server and stole the models or anything :p

TemplarGFX
3D Hobbyist since 1996
I use poser native units

167 Car Materials for Poser

I have sympathy with your view templargfx, particularly as paramount do not provide 3D virtual models for sale. That's bit like showing a kiddy a toffe then snatching it away from them.

actually its more like showing a kid a picture of a toffe, then grounding him for making his own toffe from scratch :D

TemplarGFX
3D Hobbyist since 1996
I use poser native units

167 Car Materials for Poser

Quote - actually its more like showing a kid a picture of a toffe, then grounding him for making his own toffe from scratch :D

Actually it's more like showing a kid a REAL Toffe and THEN Grounding him for making a picture of it from scratch. :tt2:

Quote - I dont see how taking something in 2D (TV screen) and using it as reference for creating something in 3D can be considered copyright infringement. Its not like you hacked into ILM's server and stole the models or anything

Even where there's absolutely no question that you created something from scratch on your own, you may still run trouble if you make use of elements that are trademarked or use a trademark as part of the name.

Quote - > Quote - I dont see how taking something in 2D (TV screen) and using it as reference for creating something in 3D can be considered copyright infringement. Its not like you hacked into ILM's server and stole the models or anything

Even where there's absolutely no question that you created something from scratch on your own, you may still run trouble if you make use of elements that are trademarked or use a trademark as part of the name.

Sorry, but this is really stretching it.

Yes, there are grey areas, like fashion design. In theory, a fashion design cannot be copyrighted or trademarked, not legally anyway. True, there are some companies that will claim it's part of a trademarked "look" and therefore their IP, but under the law as it stands right now, fashion is exempt from both copyright and trademark.

But at the same time, someone sat down, put ass in seat, and sweated through the creation of it. Does that give you the right to just say, "I dont care, I'm stealing it anyway"? Yeah, evil big corporations and all that... been there, done that. You're still ripping off the work of a fellow artist. There is a real person at the other end of that design. Not everything can just be dismissed as "faceless corporate America". Real human beings created that wizard robe or that shield design or that collar detailing. And you honestly feel you have some entitlement to just take that moment of creation away from them for the sake of a buck?

Sorry, but I have a real issue with that. As I wrote earlier in this thread, if you want to throw it in Freestuff and let others use it gratis for the creation of fan art, that's one thing. But the moment you start charging for it? When money changes hands, it becomes a whole different moral ballgame.

I'm asked to create every day in my role as an exhibit designer. Trust me, there are days when I want to just open up the latest issue of DDI and rip off a few ideas. But that's not what I was hired to do. And my work is no more protected under copyright than a fashion designer's, because what I design is considered "architecture", which is also a non-protected category. I've seen some of my stuff show up in other people's portfolios, and trust me: it cheeses me off. But there's nothing I can do about it except let them know I'm aware of their little theft. Sometimes they'll be gracious enough to pull it. Sometimes they wont -- and there's not much I can do about it. But again, it seriously cheeses me off when I see it happen.

So I can imagine how a costumer must feel when s/he looks around the web and sees her/his creations reborn without permission. That designer may not own the design, but someone still had to make it happen. And we should respect that.

docandraider.com -- the collected cartoons of Doc and Raider

Sean I get what you're saying but I still think there's a difference between "inspired by" and a downright rip-off.

Making a wizard robe that MIGHT look like something from a certain scar-faced young bespectacled wizard's universe is one thing. Meticulously copying it to the slightest thread is something else (but hey.. if someone has.. let me HAVE it LOL)

Fan Art is all about making things recognizable. If you can't see what it's supposed to be, then there's no fan art in it.

Mind you, I've seen HP fanart where it was VERY far fetched. Beautiful art, but it was only because it was posted in the HP fandom that it was ever being recognized as such, I bet. And in a way it's the same with my "book Snape" - he looks nothing like Alan Rickman, but he looks like my mental image of Snape from the books. And people who likes and follows my "art" in the HP fandom knows that this is my rendition of Snape. Even if he looks different from their vision.

Look at this:

This is probably the most awesome Snape-fan art I've ever seen. Yet few people outside the HP (slash) fandom would ever even SEE this as "Snape"

To make fan art *everybody" will recognize, it has to LOOK like the original! And if nobody models it, how can all the non-modelling people ever make fan art?

I agree, TG. Dont misunderstand -- as I said before, if someone wants to model up something and put it in Freestuff so folks can create fan art, go for it. To give the model away implies, in my mind anyway, a certain respect for the person that created the original.

But to put it in the MP? Sorry, that crosses an ethical line. May not be illegal, but it's sure morally questionable. I'd have real trouble purchasing from a merchant who did that.

docandraider.com -- the collected cartoons of Doc and Raider

You talk about the artist that created the original, what about the artist that created the copy?
There time and effort is worth just as much as the original artists. Its not like when a vender decides to copy somthing it takes a mere 30 seconds to do so

In my opinion it doesnt matter if its an exact copy of whatever it is, be it clothes, tech or architecture. Design is only one SMALL part of creation of 3D elements. and I dont see any problem AT ALL with a vendor wanting to make money from the time and effort they spent re-creating it in 3D.

Remember (unless I missed the post that sidetracked this thread) we are not talking about a vendor copying something and claiming it as there own design and creation, but simply a vender creating a copy of something that has already been designed in another medium. The former is intollerable

TemplarGFX
3D Hobbyist since 1996
I use poser native units

167 Car Materials for Poser

>> "You talk about the artist that created the original, what about the artist that created the copy?"

What about him?

Just because someone has the technical skill to model and rig something doesnt mean I'm supposed to give him a pass for taking someone else's design for the purpose of making money off it. Am I supposed to applaud the guy who makes a film based on a play he does not have the rights to just because he knows how to make a movie?

docandraider.com -- the collected cartoons of Doc and Raider

I think there is no more original art or ideas. Everything is derivative or a slight extensiopn of something that has gone before. When some tries to be original now we get the nonsense of such as Pollock, or an unmade bed pretending to be art.

For instance: The computer consoles in the new star treck movie are echos od real computer screens and control systems. The pointy ears in Avatar could be Mr Spock's ears. Yhe cosoles in Avatar coulld be real models of Homer Simpson's console Harry potter uses wizadry but there have been wizards since Merlin or before.

Building a 3D model from a 2D source cannot be accurate enough to be anything but derivative I think. Only if the actual texture from the movie etc is used to in a model should it be considered plagerism or breach of copyright.

Well talking about derivates.. As I understand it, Stonemason takes pictures of actual buildings (his textures seems to imply it, too) and make those in 3D. Well, SOMEWHERE there's an architect or a mason or a simple bricklayer who came up with the idea first.

So those aren't right to make either?

I once made a dog poop for Poser. And while those Perfectly swirled poops are hard to find IRL, I'm sure some dog originally made it before I did. So I'm plagiarizing that as well

Where does it end? G-D made Adam in His image if you are to believe some old book. So Michael et. al. are plagiates of His work? And I think we're supposed to multiply but by doing so, we're also copying G-D's work...

See? This is getting silly...

(what's even more silly is that I'm using caps and the - way of naming a deity I don't even believe in.... but that's a whole other discussion - and a question of respect or the lack of same)

Quote - >> "You talk about the artist that created the original, what about the artist that created the copy?"

What about him?

Just because someone has the technical skill to model and rig something doesnt mean I'm supposed to give him a pass for taking someone else's design for the purpose of making money off it. Am I supposed to applaud the guy who makes a film based on a play he does not have the rights to just because he knows how to make a movie?

What about an artist that paints a picture of the San Giovanni Laterano Church in exact detail then sells it for thousands of dollars, or the metal smith who creates a miniature replica of the Eiffel Tower and sells that for thousands of dollars.

The first artist didnt design the church, and the seconds didnt design the Eiffel Tower, yet this is normal and accepted the world over as original art. Just because we've moved from the physical world to the digital doesnt change the fact that a 3D artist is doing exactly the same thing.

TemplarGFX
3D Hobbyist since 1996
I use poser native units

167 Car Materials for Poser

Whatever, guys. You have your take on this. I have mine. Let's leave it at that.

docandraider.com -- the collected cartoons of Doc and Raider

Aw no don't back out now Sean ;)

Honestly, Templargfx has a point, too. Making miniatures or RL paintings of something is quite similar to making a real object into a 3D model. Both are making something from a RL object, yet one is questionable (the 3D object) while the other is (potentially) Art.

Why?

or why not?

Honestly I think this is a highly interesting discussion. We may not agree, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss it :) It's like saying you should only discuss politics or religion (bot of which are not really allowed here, for a reason!) with people with whom you already agree.. but then there isn't much to discuss, is there?

I love discussing both politics and religion with people that are firmly disagreeing with my views.. and then making them doubt their views.. THAT is Gold ;)

The problem with Copyright discussions is just that though TG. Some folks have elevated the ownership of an idea to the same levels as religious fervor. And they're down right religious in their desire to not be moved for fear it will loose them their salvation in some way. Best just to smile at the notions of those who disagree with you and move on.

On a very OT Tangent, I was just recently in an online discussion with folks about when was the best time to disclose one's HIV status with someone you were forming a relationship with. That discussion degenerated quite rapidly between the two camps of "I disclose because it's the right and honest thing to do" and "I don't disclose because everyone is responsible for their own health and if I wear a Condom I am not responsible for your health". It ended with some nutjob claiming that disclosure would hurt the children in his family because bullies at school would find out and torment the children til they commited suicide. It was just ludicrous!

Quote - >> "You talk about the artist that created the original, what about the artist that created the copy?"

Am I supposed to applaud the guy who makes a film based on a play he does not have the rights to just because he knows how to make a movie?

Shakespeare productions get applauded thousands of times a year, both on stage and on film. Is there something wrong with that? Or does your standard not apply just because Shakespeare had the courtesy to die a few hundred years before modern copyright laws were invented?

It's a bit much to expect every clothing creator at Rendo to create perfectly original designs. That job belongs to fashion designers who very well expect their designs to be copied. If something is dear to the heart of a designer, they can protect it with a trademark, and that obviously needs to be respected. But to expect every single artist to reinvent the wheel with everything they create is absurd. No one could work that way. And copyright laws reflect that.

PoserPro 2014, PS CS5.5 Ext, Nikon D300. Win 8, i7-4770 @ 3.4 GHz, AMD Radeon 8570, 12 GB RAM.

Quote - The problem with Copyright discussions is just that though TG. Some folks have elevated the ownership of an idea to the same levels as religious fervor. And they're down right religious in their desire to not be moved for fear it will loose them their salvation in some way. Best just to smile at the notions of those who disagree with you and move on.

Well, this seems to be true of discussions about just about anything. People can get remarkably emotional about movie reviews, fast food dishes, the local weather. I'm guessing that if we have the emotional space to get dramatic over something like the moral basis of intellectual property rights, it probably means we have pretty darned easy lives. So that's a good thing.

But really the whole purpose of continuing with a discussion of this nature is not to persuade SM, for example, to a different opinion. He won't be persuaded no matter what anyone says. The purpose of continuing is to share our opinions so that we can bond with those who agree with us, and possibly to persuade the lurkers.

PoserPro 2014, PS CS5.5 Ext, Nikon D300. Win 8, i7-4770 @ 3.4 GHz, AMD Radeon 8570, 12 GB RAM.

TG, we've been having this same discussion around here since this place got started, and it always boils down to the same points. "You cant use that without permission!" "You're infringing on my creativity!" "Shakespeare!" "Hitler!" *ad nauseum...

*Bottom line is: as I have said three times now, if you want to make something for fan art that's based on someone else's work, I dont mind if you put it in freestuff. But the minute you charge for it, I have real trouble with that. No drama about it; whoever the merchant is will have simply lost me as a customer. As this thread -- and the countless before it -- ably demonstrates, there are those who think otherwise. Good for them. That's their choice, not mine.

docandraider.com -- the collected cartoons of Doc and Raider

Quote -

Shakespeare productions get applauded thousands of times a year, both on stage and on film. Is there something wrong with that? Or does your standard not apply just because Shakespeare had the courtesy to die a few hundred years before modern copyright laws were invented?

Even if they were in effect then, his works would still be out of copyright by now.

Complicating the matter, in spite of the Berne Treaty, is diferent jurisdictions; for instance, the concept of 'Fair Use" enshrined in US law doesn't exist in many other countries, including, I believe, the EU... ..

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Wisdom of bagginsbill:

"Oh - the manual says that? I have never read the manual - this must be why."
“I could buy better software, but then I'd have to be an artist and what's the point of that?"
"The [R'osity Forum Search] 'Default' label should actually say 'Don't Find What I'm Looking For'".
bagginsbill's Free Stuff... https://web.archive.org/web/20201010171535/https://sites.google.com/site/bagginsbill/Home

Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL

Subject: I'll go straght to h##' for this one