when would a model become my own?

I have a model of a train paid for.

I have taken said model and chopped it up.into about 8 sections. removed parts of the body. copied other parts and added them. changed the scale of others.

so how much do I have to change to make it my own to do with as I wish,

with out sued?

or would I have to start all over. even if I liked the shape so much that if I did start over it looked like the first one after I had finished chopping?

A model is your own when:

1. You have created it from the ground up, e.g., from nothing.

2. It does not contain any mesh (or parts of) someone else's creation.

3. You have not duplicated any part of another model, including textures, bump maps, etc.

I believe that covers it but I may have left something out, sooooo .... :blink:

re: " ... start all over ..." ? ... In a word, .............. Yes! :biggrin:

Then, you can claim it as "yours."

cheers,
dr geep
;=]

Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"

cheers,

dr geep ... :o]

edited 10/5/2019

I think that you would have to change it so much (real modeling not cosmetic changes) that it would be faster to model it from scratch.

GIMP 2.7.4, Inkscape 0.48, Genetica 3.6 Basic, FilterForge 3 Professional, Blender 2.61, SketchUp 8, PoserPro 2012, Vue 10 Infinite, World Machine 2.3, GeoControl 2

Quote - when would a model become my own?

I have a model of a train paid for.

I have taken said model and chopped it up.into about 8 sections. removed parts of the body. copied other parts and added them. changed the scale of others.

so how much do I have to change to make it my own to do with as I wish,

with out sued?

or would I have to start all over. even if I liked the shape so much that if I did start over it looked like the first one after I had finished chopping?

Answer:  NEVER.  This is plainly a derivative work.

My Freebies

I'm sorry to say that they are right.

If any a model holds even just the smallest piece of anouther persons creation you can not refer to it as your own. If you are looking at adjusting a model severly and then trying to sell it under your own name you will get a lot of hate mail..

however.. If you upgrade the model with new add-ons or textures then you can sell only the parts/textures you have desighned for that model but not the model itself..

These days it is just a lot easier to start from scratch and build it from the floor up as I do.

Dr. Geep has it covered.  It becomes yours only if you create it from scratch.

 model creator may allow redistrib. of some mod. as rte file; recipients own creator's file prior to receiving the distrib.

As stated above - and for the record - changing something, no matter how much does not give you the right to claim it as your own work.

There's a myth (still) circulating that you are allowed to incorporate 10% of someone else's work in your own stuff.  It's incorrect.  The actual amount is 0%.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

MissNancy is also correct, in that some (actually very few) people allow you to modify things and distribute them. One case that I can think of at the top of my head, is the generic Quick suits/dresses/shirts/coats at:

http://www.morphography.uk.vu/

Those can be altered to your liking and used however you wish. That was the whole intention of those models though, to give people a clothing starting point. Most other models, however, you can't do such a thing.

BUT, say you create something cool that goes with someone else's model. You CAN save that as a smart-prop for it and distribute the hell out of it. You made it, even if it is for someone else's original model. Just don't try and distribute the original model with your addition, remember to just post a link to what it goes with.

Edit: That 10% myth is actually true, just not for 3D modeling. It works for recipes, and some other products you find in stores. I know of a company that orders a certain popular brand of picante sauce, they add a few of their ingredients, put it in their jars with their labels, and sell it commercially. So yes, the 10% rule does apply somewhere, just not in the 3D world.

                                                                                                                    

Poser 10

Octane Render

Wings 3D

Quote - There's a myth (still) circulating that you are allowed to incorporate 10% of someone else's work in your own stuff.  It's incorrect.  The actual amount is 0%.

Just so:

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html#howmuch

Some loudmouth will probably come along and argue against this, but do not listen to such people as they are stupid and wrong.

My Freebies

Quote - Edit: That 10% myth is actually true, just not for 3D modeling. It works for recipes, and some other products you find in stores. I know of a company that orders a certain popular brand of picante sauce, they add a few of their ingredients, put it in their jars with their labels, and sell it commercially. So yes, the 10% rule does apply somewhere, just not in the 3D world.

It's not true in any aspect of copyright law.  Food recipes and formulae are generally considered trade secrets and have little to do with how copyrights are handled.  Aside from that, simply mixing food products together and reselling them doesn't actually have anything to do with either, it has to do with whether it's legally okay to resell that food item.  Likely that example of yours involves some form of permit from a government agency (USDA I suppose) and permission from the original manufacturer.

In copyright context, any derivative work requires permission, there is no percentage rule.  The only exception is "fair use", and resale or free redistribution definitely does not qualify as "fair use".  Read:
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html#howmuch

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html (fair use in general)

My Freebies

ok, so using a food reference doesn't really apply to copyrights. I was only using it as an example where one company took a product, added to it, and resell it. Kinda the same, but still different.

I DO agree with you though, I thought it was kinda F'ed up when I found out that's what the company did to make their salsa.

                                                                                                                    

Poser 10

Octane Render

Wings 3D

I take pjz99's point of view.

Eternal Hobbyist

 

 

1. For the first, if you look at CURRENT PRACTICE in courts all over the world, it IS allowed to use small insignifant parts of other's work.

2. For the second, any mesh can easely be retopologized in 5-10 min. Then its yours.

It is always good to know what you are talking about.

 

There seems to be some confusion here as to if he is asking when a derivative work is ethically an original work (never), ...and when a court might find damages to the original author (sometimes, depending on the nature and extent of the usage of the original author’s works).

 

It might also be fruitful to discuss "which direction are the copyright laws going?"

After all "Fair Use" were being practiced for many years before it was written into law..there are many  people today who claim that the current copyright laws benefite the big companies, instead of the common man..

In that context it might be interesting to think about that Japan is considering to change the law so that you are only eligible to compensation if you can PROVE  that you lost money by the act.

 

 

 

 

I've edited/fixed plenty of meshes of models others have created.  But I've never thought of any of the meshes as being mine or my own.  I've only thought of the meshes as being just fixed.

www.youtube.com/user/ShawnDriscollCG

SoulTaker,

Let us be practical. Of course it is inefficient that millions of users all over the world recreate the same simple stuff over and over again, reinventing the wheel.

If you don't know how to retopology, or don't have the right tools, do like this,

1. Make your derivative, nobody is going to care about what you do in your own home.

2. When finished, maybe 70 % is your work and 30 % the orginator's.

3. Then replace the orginal mesh that is left with you own. It is easier to do 30 % than 100 %!

Also remember that there are millions of models in 3D warehouse that is completly free, even to sell and distribute.

If you plan to edit something for personal use, there's not really anything anyone can do to stop you, but, if you plan to redistribute in any way, remember the community of people you're in.  Most modelling artists watch releases (freebies and for sale) like a hawk, looking for something similar to theirs.  If even so much as 10 facets line up perfectly, you may not be in a legal quagmire, but you will be dragged through the mud, verbally and in screenshot form.

You could still be sued on top of that, should the artist in question have the  money to do so.  They don't have to win the lawsuit in order to bankrupt you with legal fees.

Sitemail | Freestuff | Craftythings | Youtube|

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

Quote - It might also be fruitful to discuss "which direction are the copyright laws going?"

No it wouldn't.  Really, read the applicable copyright law.  The stuff is not ambiguous. 

My Freebies

A derivative is something that comes from modification of an existing product. Copyright has nothing to do with it. The Content you purchase is Licensed to you for your use and by accepting the License, you agree not to use any portion of the model, or derivatives of the model in any redistributed format. (Period)

 

ratscloset
aka John

Quote - You could still be sued on top of that, should the artist in question have the  money to do so.  They don't have to win the lawsuit in order to bankrupt you with legal fees.

In the US, this would only apply if the copyright is registered, which most people do not do, assuming that because copyright is automatic, registration is unecessary.  Registration of a copyright is required in order for a U.S. citizen or resident to file suit for infringement.  Placing your own statement "copyright 2011" within the file or metadata does not constitute registration.  Actually, the copyright office has streamlined the registration process and it can be completed on line.  Naturally, there is a fee.

Klebnor

Lotus 123 ~ S-Render ~ OS/2 WARP ~ IBM 8088 / 4.77 Mhz ~ Hercules Ultima graphics, Hitachi 10 MB HDD, 64K RAM, 12 in diagonal CRT Monitor (16 colors / 60 Hz refresh rate), 240 Watt PS, Dual 1.44 MB Floppies, 2 button mouse input device.  Beige horizontal case.  I don't display my unit.

Yup, and all you have to do is register your copyright, then file the lawsuit.  However, your copyright BEGINS at the moment of creation, not at the moment of filing, and the law takes that into account. 

Sitemail | Freestuff | Craftythings | Youtube|

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

 

pjz99, "read the applicable copyright law.."

That I have done many times. No it is you who need to read about the "Common law" system used in US and in the UK Commonwealth Countries. In our last discussion you were the expert, now I am the expert and have in fact written a treatise about copyright.

If you think it is too much work to read, use modern common sense and logic. If it is as you say how is it the "Fair Use" was practiced long before it was writtin into a law?

?

Before a fight ensues, let me point out, Vintorix, that many times our own copyright agents have, in the past, pointed out where your arguments are wrong or not wholly true, at least in the US.  Repeating an argument over and over does not increase it's truth, no matter how many times you repeat it.

 

I think, for the most part, that SoulTaker's question has been answered, so if you guys want to argue, by all means, do so, but take it to sitemail.

Sitemail | Freestuff | Craftythings | Youtube|

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

JenX,

I have no more to argue, as I know I'm right. You must understand the common law system to have on opinion in this matter. I am backing out.  Still this thread has given better information to both beginners and others alike than most threads here about the matter.

Going back to the original question posed:

when would a model become my own?

The answer is obvious ... when you have wined and dined her and she follows you home.

Lotus 123 ~ S-Render ~ OS/2 WARP ~ IBM 8088 / 4.77 Mhz ~ Hercules Ultima graphics, Hitachi 10 MB HDD, 64K RAM, 12 in diagonal CRT Monitor (16 colors / 60 Hz refresh rate), 240 Watt PS, Dual 1.44 MB Floppies, 2 button mouse input device.  Beige horizontal case.  I don't display my unit.

Quote -  

pjz99, "read the applicable copyright law.."

That I have done many times. No it is you who need to read about the "Common law" system used in US and in the UK Commonwealth Countries. In our last discussion you were the expert, now I am the expert and have in fact written a treatise about copyright.

If you think it is too much work to read, use modern common sense and logic. If it is as you say how is it the "Fair Use" was practiced long before it was writtin into a law?

?

 

"Common law" is state.  Fair Use Doctrine is federal.  Two different court systems.

Quote - Going back to the original question posed:

when would a model become my own?

The answer is obvious ... when you have wined and dined her and she follows you home.

Purr-feck !!! ...................... Meow ...

Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"

cheers,

dr geep ... :o]

edited 10/5/2019

I got a question...How long did it take rework the model?  How long would it take for you to create your own model from scratch?

 

 

Quote - If you think it is too much work to read, ...

Your wonderful and amazing opinions aside, the language of copyright law is very simple and very clear.  I encourage you to read it more until the very simple and very clear meaning gets through.  If you just don't like how copyright law works, think it sucks and choose not to follow it, fine, congratulations, but seriously the law is not ambiguous.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

My Freebies

"Fair use"...

Not a worldwide law, in fact, not really a law at all.  It can be used as a defense in a copyright claim but of itself grants no rights to anything.  Copyright still belongs to the owner.

The proposed changes to US copyright law will, if anything, make the situation better for businesses and worse for individuals.  Most people would like to keep things the way they are.

And furthermore...

If it's allowable to use a portion of something, how come aleknest got into hot water for using the feet from one model for his own?  Should he have used half a foot?  A toe?  A toenail?  In fact, another person did something similar at RDNA with the figure they were selling and it also happened here with Renda.  So, all these incidents were handled wrongly?

Also, if you can alter the topology of a model to make it your own, by which it's yours to sell or give away legally, please do so with one of the DAZ people.  Go on, I dare you.  I double dare you.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

TBH if you're competent to redo the topology of someone else's model, then you're MORE THAN COMPETENT to do an original one yourself with less effort.  I've heard this notion repeated a few times and it's a retarded idea.

My Freebies

I believe the correct construction is "I double dog dare you".

Although ... now that I think about it, that might be copyrighted by Jean Shepherd.

Klebnor

Lotus 123 ~ S-Render ~ OS/2 WARP ~ IBM 8088 / 4.77 Mhz ~ Hercules Ultima graphics, Hitachi 10 MB HDD, 64K RAM, 12 in diagonal CRT Monitor (16 colors / 60 Hz refresh rate), 240 Watt PS, Dual 1.44 MB Floppies, 2 button mouse input device.  Beige horizontal case.  I don't display my unit.

I am sorry I cannot answer you but if I do jenX will close down the thread immediatly. I guess I should be thankful for experiencing a small taste of how it was to live in the Sovjet Union under the cold war!

 

Quote - I believe the correct construction is "I double dog dare you".

Never seen Pulp Fiction?

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

Yes, but I've also seen A Christmas Story.

Tongue on flag pole?

Hmmm, perhaps I'll have a Royale with cheese for lunch.

Regards,

Klebnor

Lotus 123 ~ S-Render ~ OS/2 WARP ~ IBM 8088 / 4.77 Mhz ~ Hercules Ultima graphics, Hitachi 10 MB HDD, 64K RAM, 12 in diagonal CRT Monitor (16 colors / 60 Hz refresh rate), 240 Watt PS, Dual 1.44 MB Floppies, 2 button mouse input device.  Beige horizontal case.  I don't display my unit.

Hmmm, perhaps I'll have a Royale with cheese for lunch.

Mmmm,  sounds good!  BTW what is a Royal?

 

 

Royale with cheese = quarter pounder with cheese, in France.

Pulp Fiction / metric system reference.

Lotus 123 ~ S-Render ~ OS/2 WARP ~ IBM 8088 / 4.77 Mhz ~ Hercules Ultima graphics, Hitachi 10 MB HDD, 64K RAM, 12 in diagonal CRT Monitor (16 colors / 60 Hz refresh rate), 240 Watt PS, Dual 1.44 MB Floppies, 2 button mouse input device.  Beige horizontal case.  I don't display my unit.

Quote - Hmmm, perhaps I'll have a Royale with cheese for lunch.

Mmmm,  sounds good!  BTW what is a Royal?

A Quarter Pounder with cheese.

Laurie

A quarter pounder!

Excellent!  Did you get french fries with that?  Wait a minute...what do they call french fries in France?

 

 

Pommes Frittes

And they put mayonaise on them !!!!!!!

Lotus 123 ~ S-Render ~ OS/2 WARP ~ IBM 8088 / 4.77 Mhz ~ Hercules Ultima graphics, Hitachi 10 MB HDD, 64K RAM, 12 in diagonal CRT Monitor (16 colors / 60 Hz refresh rate), 240 Watt PS, Dual 1.44 MB Floppies, 2 button mouse input device.  Beige horizontal case.  I don't display my unit.

Pommes Frittes

And they put mayonaise on them !!!!!!!

Mmmm...Can they super size 'em?

 

 

Even a  complete retopo using 3D Coat or Silo2 Might get you in trouble in this community or at the very least tarnish you as a filthy "thief" in the various Forums.
Did Not Daz  Kill the original Alexa1 Because  it copied the vertice arrangement of
the original "GIRL" ( Koosens version)???

My website

YouTube Channel

Quote - Even a  complete retopo using 3D Coat or Silo2 Might get you in trouble in this community or at the very least tarnish you as a filthy "thief" in the various Forums.
Did Not Daz  Kill the original Alexa1 Because  it copied the vertice arrangement of
the original "GIRL" ( Koosens version)???

Something like that.  IIRC, the creator (again, aleknest) used Girl's head as reference for modelling.  Around the same time, 3DUniverse withdrew and remodelled one of their figures because it had a remarkable similarity to Girl.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

Quote - Pommes Frittes

And they put mayonaise on them !!!!!!!

Nope, that's in the Netherlands.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

the daz girl model also seemed like it was based on a porno cartoon character by some french or belgian artist (can't recall name).  they never clarified if that artist got royalties or credit IIRC.  I also never understood why they put tomato sauce on their french fries.  I tried asking one of them and he said that's the way his pappy done it.  it would be better to skip the fries IMVHO, as they go straight to the abdominal fat AFAIK.

Brits usually put vinegar and/or tomato sauce on fries.  Mayo on fries is just plain weird but a friend in Den Haag likes 'em that way.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

Actually, I've seen it (mayo) done throughout the benelux, can't swear to France - I tend to avoid it when possible.  Definitely the preference in Maastricht, ketchup receives strange looks.

Of course, it could be the coffee shop smoking clouds my perception.

Skunk, anyone?

Klebnor

Lotus 123 ~ S-Render ~ OS/2 WARP ~ IBM 8088 / 4.77 Mhz ~ Hercules Ultima graphics, Hitachi 10 MB HDD, 64K RAM, 12 in diagonal CRT Monitor (16 colors / 60 Hz refresh rate), 240 Watt PS, Dual 1.44 MB Floppies, 2 button mouse input device.  Beige horizontal case.  I don't display my unit.

Quote - Brits usually put vinegar and/or tomato sauce on fries.  Mayo on fries is just plain weird but a friend in Den Haag likes 'em that way.

 

Wut?

no Salad Cream with chips? trust me.... thats heaven..... oh for the love of Salad Cream Sandwhiches....

Airport security is a burden we must all shoulder. Do your part, and please grope yourself in advance.

Retopo(UGH!)...A figure has to have 44 animation edgeloops.  Best to start with a rig of primitives then add your animation edgeloops.

Who is Alexa1?

Vinegar sauce on fries... Mmmm...I really miss Arthur Treachers Fish an' Chips.

Your right them #$%&* fries raised me from a 34" waist to a 38".

 

 

 

 

Salad Cream and cucumbers...

 

 

> Quote - Retopo(UGH!)... > > Who is Alexa1?

Alexa (Obj file depicted here) along with "neftoonGal" was one of the Models that cropped into being in an attempt to ride the Extraordinary wave of popularity of the "GIRL" model
A LW model by an artist named Kim goosens.
it is quite ironic that I grew to utterly Despise the Girl when in Fact it was Me who Literally "introduced" her to this community in a forum post called "the koshini Effect"
SEE THREAD HERE
when I posted images from  the original Kim goosens WIP thread
over at the CGChannel Web forums years ago
once the "We must have her!!! " frenzy" ensued
DAZ inc  Bought the model outright from goosens
and began the process of purging the landscape of any
would be Contenders to her albeit  short lived  reign.

Cheers

My website

YouTube Channel

Ketchup on fries yeah, mustard... "Frenchfried taters 'n mustard, mmhmm."

 

maonaise only belongs in tuna salad, If a burger joint puts maonaise on my burger when I tell them not to I take it back and tell them I want a burger without the spooge please.

salad cream? WTF is that?

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

here we go... as I'm sure other brits can attest.... there's nothing quite like it....

Airport security is a burden we must all shoulder. Do your part, and please grope yourself in advance.

Quote - Vinegar sauce on fries... Mmmm...I really miss Arthur Treachers Fish an' Chips. 

Me too-Yum!  Skipper's is pretty good, but greasier than Treachers was, and they are a West Coast chain.

I miss the fries at Fatburger in College Station.  Always hot, and best eaten with ketchup and sliced jalapeños.  Wonderful!

I once had lunch at the McDonalds near the Tower of London.  It tasted like...McDonalds.  Whoda thunk it? :biggrin:

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

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 - Retopo(UGH!)...A figure has to have 44 animation edgeloops.  Best to start with a rig of primitives then add your animation edgeloops.

See, Patorak says this because he is a competent modeler (actually a very good one).  You just don't shrinkwrap a bunch of shit around a model and suddenly you have a good model with the same shape, you end up with a shitty model that has kinda-the-same shape.

My Freebies

Quote - you end up with a shitty model that has kinda-the-same shape.

Which will be very Difficult to rig I  imagine.

 

 

Cheers

My website

YouTube Channel

You just don't shrinkwrap a bunch of shit around a model and suddenly you have a good model with the same shape, you end up with a shitty model that has kinda-the-same shape.

Pjz99,  You're a top modeler and i wish they would take your advice and instruction.  i know i have in the past and learned a lot from you(even though you had to beat it into my head,LOL!).

WandW,  Where's the best fish and chips you ever had?

 

 

 

It's the wind up and the pitch and it's a high curve ball just outside...

I know people who take images and place them on a flat plane as a modeling reference and then start creaing pixels in front of the image. I would guess and it is purely a guess, a lot of the cars in the market place are done this way. Whose property is the final mesh? The image creator or the mesh creator?

Before you answer the question, what would happen if the original poster rendered out the train he purchased and then put the render on back ground plane and modeled his own copy in front of it?

I have taken pictures of local buildings and pinned them up next to my computer as a reference because I want the 3D model I was making to have some part of that building in the mesh. Maybe a set of steps, the look of a door, a signs, or a window frame in relation to the size of the building, etc. I am not a reseller of products or renders. I have illustrated stories for friends for give away fiction stories. And yes Vicki did get a divorce from Mike and I have them both entering a close replicia of the front of an office building located in Reno, Nevada. The front of the Washoe county muni court where you really would go for a divorce has been closed for years. (you now enter via a side entrance)  Plus the front of it sucks looks wise.

 

 

 

 

Gary

"Those who lose themselves in a passion lose less than those who lose their passion"

Don't know about cars... Do know about buildings... Architectual blueprints are the copyrighted work of the architects.  

 

 

no one has said personal pride!! if I want to call it mine I want to know I made it

Quote - I would guess and it is purely a guess, a lot of the cars in the market place are done this way. Whose property is the final mesh? The image creator or the mesh creator?

Funny you should ask!  There are two aspects to this, copyright and trademark.  Logos and brand names fall under the trademark category, and if you reproduce a trademarked logo that's trademark infringement.  Trademark law is not quite the same as copyright although there are many similarities.  It is also not ambiguous.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sup_01_15_10_22.html

As to the shape and design of the car itself, at least one fully executed court case (Meshwerks v. Toyota) has established that these things fall under copyright law, and that the copyright belongs to the original designer (in this case Toyota retained all rights to the 3d digital model derived from their design).

http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/tenth_circuit_denies_copyright_protection_for_meshwerks_digital_models_of_c

Again someone will probably come along and dispute this, but whatever, people try to justify software piracy and all sorts of other nonsense too.

My Freebies

Formerly having obtained License for use of Trademark and Copyrighted Designs from a Automaker, I can say if the product appears to resemble any car ever made (I know this is very open) and especially if it contains a brand name or logo... but does not contain a License Statement in the Readme or License naming the manufacturer, run away from the model and do not try to use it in a commercial venture.

For the Automaker to continue to enforce their Trademark, the License Statement must be included and normally is required to be included with any end user work, along with compensation and approval in most cases.

My experience was for a Ford Dealer Commercial and because we created a Model of the car, we had to get permission from Ford. I decided to take it a step farther, with plans on selling the model and the requirements for both me (Up front License Fees, plus a per sale fee) and the end user (authorization of release of work and per use fee) I never did sell the model.

If you want to see an example of the statements, go to any Hobby Store and read a Car Model Box... most have the License statement printed on the Box.

ratscloset
aka John

Quote - when would a model become my own?

I have a model of a train paid for.

I have taken said model and chopped it up.into about 8 sections. removed parts of the body. copied other parts and added them. changed the scale of others.

so how much do I have to change to make it my own to do with as I wish,

with out sued?

or would I have to start all over. even if I liked the shape so much that if I did start over it looked like the first one after I had finished chopping?

Just out of curiosity, why do you want to make it "your own"? Do you want to sell it or distribute it? I personally don't see harm in taking someone elses model and mincing it up a bit to create some secondary product you need such as an animation or something like that. In that case you should credit the original author who created the original model just as you would if you had used the original model in its original form. I think most models are intended for people to use them in animations or graphics of some sort. I would think you could do this without being sued so long as you give proper credits or abide by the rules of the creator.

At first glance, I don't understand why anyone would want to sell or distribute something, even in part, which was created by someone else.

Please visit My 3D Freebies

Thank you for your patronage!

Quote -  Most modelling artists watch releases (freebies and for sale) like a hawk, looking for something similar to theirs. 

Generally they will rip your name through the mud eve if it isn't a copyright issue, Iv'e seen some pretty vicious attacks regarding 2 diferent artists creating similar models of their own designs.

Basically both artists made models of similar products so one artists slams the other for "copying" their idea.

aka MCDLabs
also known as Daniel Merrill a grumpy old disabled Jarhead.
checkout my freebies at
https://www.sharecg.com/pf/full_uploads.php?pf_user_name=mcdlabs

Quote - At first glance, I don't understand why anyone would want to sell or distribute something, even in part, which was created by someone else.

Because you might make some money for minimal effort of course.  For example:

http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/3d-model-female-head-morph-targets/579239

only $45!

edit: in case you don't recognize that, that is EF/SM Sydney G2, there is actually a wireframe pic shown in that listing that is exactly the same topology.

My Freebies

edit: in case you don't recognize that, that is EF/SM Sydney G2, there is actually a wireframe pic shown in that listing that is exactly the same topology.

..and Kozoboro hair.

Quote - > Quote - when would a model become my own?

I have a model of a train paid for.

I have taken said model and chopped it up.into about 8 sections. removed parts of the body. copied other parts and added them. changed the scale of others.

so how much do I have to change to make it my own to do with as I wish,

with out sued?

or would I have to start all over. even if I liked the shape so much that if I did start over it looked like the first one after I had finished chopping?

...

At first glance, I don't understand why anyone would want to sell or distribute something, even in part, which was created by someone else.

Trying to look at it from a non-modeler's perspective it could be like this: I want to have a good train-model, but there is none. There is a train-lookalike, but unfortunately, the different parts are completely out of scale, taken from different actual trains and so on. There is this train-expert who is not a skilled modeler, but knows trains, rearranges and rescales the different parts of the first model into a new one, and the result is the perfect train. This is what i (the consumer) want. Of course the train-expert should get at least some money and fame of it, otherwise he would not have done this work in the first place, even if all parts he used were essentially copied. As long as the end-result is to be considered a different thing than the copied parts, it is a creation of its own.

The decision however, if the end-result is a new original work or merely a modified copy, can only be made on a case-by-case basis. In the meshwerks/toyota case there was no originality involved, even though the objects were completely different things (computer-model vs. car), on the other hand for example Jim Gary shamelessly used rearranged car parts to make himself a name (would he have tried to do this with some 3d-vendors car-models, he probably would have experienced some more resistance :-).

Quote - when would a model become my own? 

 

As Dr. Geep said, the only way a model will ever be your own to sell/distribute or put your name on, is if you created it from the ground up from nothing.  Hacking up an existing model and making changes isn't creating, it's reworking and is considered a derivative.  There are copyright laws that cover "derivatives", however, they are vague and the end decision ultimately lays in the hands of the Judge in a court of law.

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

Just a quick question because I've never heard it mentioned, but can someone actually sell their copyright to someone else?

Yep.  That's effectively what many bands do when they sign publishing or recording deals.  In return for a writer's credit and a royalty, they surrender copyright to their recordings and the songs contained therein.

Of course, anyone with sense would hold out for a licensing deal instead, since the artist then retains copyright and is free to take the recordings elsewhere after a fixed term.  In the past 30 years or so, many well established acts (Bowie, Stones, Paul McCartney and many more) have set about buying back the rights to their back catalogue.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

Just keep in mind that in the case of something later determined to be a derivative work that was done without permission, all rights belong to the originator, and any sales or distribution of the derivative are void.  Hard to enforce that part but that's how US copyright law works.  And again, someone may argue this isn't true, but again those people are stupid and wrong.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#103

My Freebies

Can copyrights,  trademarks and patents be inherited through wills?

 

 

I don't know for complete certainty (check with a lawyer) but I do know they can be transferred by sale, as SamTherapy was explaining, so I expect yes.

My Freebies

I used to be a paralegal and did Wills and Estates.  Yes, you can transfer anything through a Will, provided you are specific as to what it is that you are transferring and to whom.  That doesn't mean it can't be contested though.

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

thanks all for the comments,

it started off as " I will just change that bit and snow balled"

so I guess I will go and make one myself. I know waht I want it to look like so all is not lost.

Great attitude :)  Happy modeling, I'm sure it will turn out well!

My Freebies

Quote - thanks all for the comments,

it started off as " I will just change that bit and snow balled"

so I guess I will go and make one myself. I know waht I want it to look like so all is not lost.

Yeah, just model it yourself. At the end of the day it will be more easier, more gratifying and in the process you get to learn new skills.  It's more rewarding than re-texturing or modifying an existing mesh.

And you don't have to worry about copyright issues, since you  made the mesh yourself and can therefore easily prove it.

D'oh! Why do things that happen to stupid people keep happening to me?

Quote - As to the shape and design of the car itself, at least one fully executed court case (Meshwerks v. Toyota) has established that these things fall under copyright law, and that the copyright belongs to the original designer (in this case Toyota retained all rights to the 3d digital model derived from their design).

http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/tenth_circuit_denies_copyright_protection_for_meshwerks_digital_models_of_c

Actually, this isn't what the Court said at all;  In this Case, Meshworks was contracted by Toyota to produce 3D models for a single commerical. These models were registered with the Copyright Office.  Even though they were licensed for a single use, Toyota continued to use the models without paying the Artist.  The Court ruled that an unadorned mesh of an actual physical object lacks the requisite degree of originality for copyright protection, and is therefore not copyrightable.  The issue of derivative works was not dealt with, (and is not even mentioned in the body of the ruling) but any such rights would of course belong to Toyota.  The actual ruling is here.    However, this isn't a license to go ripping off models, as the Court states "Digital modeling can be, surely is being, and no doubt increasingly will be used to create copyrightable expressions. Yet, just as photographs can be, but are not per se copyrightable, the same holds true for digital models."

The moral apparently is, always use a bit of artistic license.  :biggrin:

It goes to show you how poorly defined the Law is in some areas.  Unless you want to be a test case, Be Careful Out There...

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

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 - Actually, this isn't what the Court said at all;  In this Case, Meshworks was contracted by Toyota to produce 3D models for a single commerical. These models were registered with the Copyright Office.  Even though they were licensed for a single use, Toyota continued to use the models without paying the Artist.  The Court ruled that an unadorned mesh of an actual physical object lacks the requisite degree of originality for copyright protection, and is therefore not copyrightable.

Take another look at the decision.

"While fully appreciating that digital media present new frontiers for copyrightable creative expression, in this particular case the uncontested facts reveal that Meshwerks’ models owe their designs and origins to Toyota and deliberately do not include anything original of their own; accordingly, we hold that Meshwerks’ models are not protected by copyright and affirm." 

This pretty clearly is addressing Meshwerks' models in particular, and not 3d meshes in general.  It does not say "all unadorned meshes are not copyrightable".

Quote - The issue of derivative works was not dealt with, (and is not even mentioned in the body of the ruling)...

Yes it was:

"In due course, defendants moved for summary judgment on the theory that Meshwerks’ wire-frame models lacked sufficient originality to be protected by copyright. Specifically, defendants argued that any original expression found in Meshwerks’ products was attributable to the Toyota designers who conceived of the vehicle designs in the first place; accordingly, defendants’ use of the models could not give rise to a claim for copyright infringement."

This is the definition of a derivative work, and also see footnote 7.

My Freebies

Kind of scratching my head how you came to that conclusion after reading the whole decision document.  The summary is really black and white:

"If the basic design reflected in a work of art does not owe its origin to the putative copyright holder, then that person must add something original to that design, and then only the original addition may be copyrighted. In this case, Meshwerks copied Toyota’s designs in creating digital, wire-frame models of Toyota’s vehicles. But the models reflect, that is, “express,” no more than the depiction of the vehicles as vehicles. The designs of the vehicles, however, owe their origins to Toyota, not to Meshwerks, and so we are unable to reward Meshwerks’ digital wire-frame models, no doubt the product of significant labor, skill, and judgment, with copyright protection. The judgment of the district court is affirmed, and defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees is denied."

My Freebies

Quote - Yes it was:

"In due course, defendants moved for summary judgment on the theory that Meshwerks’ wire-frame models lacked sufficient originality to be protected by copyright. Specifically, defendants argued that any original expression found in Meshwerks’ products was attributable to the Toyota designers who conceived of the vehicle designs in the first place; accordingly, defendants’ use of the models could not give rise to a claim for copyright infringement."

This is the definition of a derivative work, and also see footnote 7.

 

You are correct, (I shouldn't read legal briefs so early in the morning; I did read footnote 7, but it is not part of the body of the decision) but that is not the thrust of the decision: the  Court did not rule that Toyota held the copyright to the models; the Court ruled that the mere reproduction of a physical object was not in itself copyrightable, so the models were not subject to protection:

As the Court more recently explained in Feist, the operative distinction is
between, on the one hand, ideas or facts in the world, items that cannot be
copyrighted, and a particular expression of that idea or fact, that can be. “This
principle, known as the idea/expression or fact/expression dichotomy, applies to
all works of authorship. As applied to a factual compilation,” the particular
matter at issue in Feist, “assuming the absence of original written expression,
only the compiler’s selection and arrangement may be protected; the raw facts
may be copied at will. This result is neither unfair nor unfortunate. It is the
means by which copyright advances the progress of science and art.” Feist, 499...

...Key to our evaluation of this case is the fact that Meshwerks’ digital wire-
frame computer models depict Toyota’s vehicles without any individualizing
features: they are untouched by a digital paintbrush; they are not depicted in
front of a palm tree, whizzing down the open road, or climbing up a
mountainside. Put another way, Meshwerks’ models depict nothing more than
unadorned Toyota vehicles – the car as car. See Appendix A. And the
unequivocal lesson from Feist is that works are not copyrightable to the extent
they do not involve any expression apart from the raw facts in the world.

That is, if  Meshwerks had made exact replica meshes of Model T's or ancient Greek statuary, they would still not be copyrightable.

Embelishing a model of a physical object would make it copyrightable, but would not likely remove its status as a derivative work if it were based on a copyrighted work.
(edited to avoid the wrath of the Apostrophe Police)

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

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

One other thing; the important consequence of this ruling isn't that certain models aren't protected; it is that original 3D models are indeed protected by copyright, which is why this is such an important case.

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

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 - That is, if  Meshwerks had made exact replica meshes of Model T's or ancient Greek statuary, they would still not be copyrightable.

W're kind of saying the same thing there.

My Freebies

Quote - One other thing; the important consequence of this ruling isn't that certain models aren't protected; it is that original 3D models are indeed protected by copyright, which is why this is such an important case.

This is confusing; ok, i understand that original models are copyright protected. Non-original models may be copyright protected if they are derived works. The model from what they were derived from, however, may or may not be copyrighted. But is it not the case that a large number of marketplace items are similar to the toyota car? Meaning, if e.g. Jil Sander took a lightwave course today, tomorrow a lot of merchants here would be surprised who the copyright owner of their model is?

A couple of days ago, a marketplace item had this ominous description in it:

Quote - The names were modified to protect the original work from any copyright issues.

does this mean, that changing a name could prevent one from being sued, or is it just to prevent the vendor from being found by potential copyright holders through search engines? My guess would be, changing the name alone would probably not make an original work, so it made me wondering (was a set of movie poses, btw).

Not necessarily prevent one from being sued.  Depends on several factors.  For the purposes of example, I'll use Disney since they are one the most litigious companies known.

Vendor X makes a model which is very much like a 3D version of Mickey Mouse.  In order to prevent getting sued, he names it Michael Mouse.  A friend advises him the name is too similar so, after a bit of thought he calls it Rodney Rodent.

Rodney Rodent goes on sale at Runtimeosity and somewhere on the line, a bod from Disney hears about it and checks out the screen shots.

Vendor X is then hit with a lawsuit on the basis that the character he sold is obviously derived from their character, Mickey Mouse and, as such, is an infringement of their intellectual property.  Disney wins.

Now, some of you might say the only reason Disney wins is because they can afford a shit hot legal team but the plain truth is Vendor X really did copy their work.

Now here's a real life, actual and genuine true scenario...

SamTherapy makes a model of a Dalek, the well known villain from the BBC tv show Doctor Who.  In order to avoid getting sued, he does not call it a Dalek, does not offer it for sale (it's a freebie) and the readme explicitly states it is not to be used for commercial purposes at all, and also acknowledges the original creators and copyright owners of the Daleks.

None of the above, however, are proof against being sued.  The fact of the matter is, I have copied someone else's intellectual property.  Whether or not I call it something else, charge for it or give it away or whatever I do is besides the point.  If BBC Worldwide and/or the estate of Terry Nation decide to sue me, they'd most likely win.

Of course, since I have nothing and have made nothing from it, they'd get nothing except an apology from me, and an undertaking to withdraw my models.  The downsides for them in that scenario are negative publicity (big company beating up little guy) and a loss of some free advertising for one of their characters.   Some companies take this attitude and allow copies of their stuff for the purposes of "Fan Art".  But remember, that's a privelege, not a right.

And, oh yeah, my Daleks are all available for download in Freestuff here.  :)

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

What you can or cannot skirt past using the law shouldn't be the issue.  People seem to want to go to great lengths to try and find some kind of loophole or consideration within the law to pass things off as their own creation.  Even as to go so far as to used advanced techniques - topology, approximation, or otherwise closely modeling around something to stubbornly just try to slip past the fact that unless you make something from scratch it is not your model and not your original work.

As has been noted, if you have the skill to do these advanced things and put a lot of emphasis  into being sneaky, why not instead focus that energy on making something that you can truly call your own?

When would a model become my own?
When you create it fully from scratch it is 100% your own model.  How can someone even argue otherwise?  If you did 90% the work, then 10% of it is not yours.

I have a model of a train paid for.
Often you pay for the right to use it for renders and animations, commercially or non-commercially.  I don't even think there is a problem with sticking bits on it or removing parts if you intend to use it in renders or animations.

The big issue comes with "do with it what I wish" - this is a pretty open ended statement.  Should you sell it?  NO.  Should you redistribute it?  NO.  Simply because there are parts of it that are still created by someone else.  Can you distribute some kind of add-on for it?  Most likely YES, as long as no part of the original model is redistributed.

Say you worked months on a great, intricate model that  you put a lot of love and care into.  You decide to sell it.  Someone takes your item and changes some parts of it, repackages it and then sells it and he's riding off of a percentage of work that you spend a great deal of time on.  He might even undercut you, further destroying your time and energy.  Maybe he decides to just give it away.  How would those scenarios make you feel?

The whole "this guy took the feet off of this model" or "that gal took the eyes of of this model" was just an easy way out and a blatant attempt to ride off of the work of others and it boggles my mind.  Why not emphasize getting better at your skill instead?  You know practice.  Learn.  Study.  But do it yourself and have the knowledge and pride  that you did it yourself and wondering about "how much you can get away with" never becomes an issue.

My 2 cents.

.

Great post Netherworks.

Quote - Great post Netherworks.

Hell yes.

And, of course, it's back to the original point we (most of us) made:

You can call it your own when you made every bit of it.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

Amen.

Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"

cheers,

dr geep ... :o]

edited 10/5/2019

Quote - SamTherapy makes a model of a Dalek, the well known villain from the BBC tv show Doctor Who.  In order to avoid getting sued, he does not call it a Dalek, does not offer it for sale (it's a freebie) and the readme explicitly states it is not to be used for commercial purposes at all, and also acknowledges the original creators and copyright owners of the Daleks.

None of the above, however, are proof against being sued.  The fact of the matter is, I have copied someone else's intellectual property.  Whether or not I call it something else, charge for it or give it away or whatever I do is besides the point.  If BBC Worldwide and/or the estate of Terry Nation decide to sue me, they'd most likely win.

 

I'd worry more about being...EXTERMINATED!!!  :lol:

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

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

Well in defense of SoulTaker it seems he genuinely didn't know and was just asking how it worked, and he's got the right attitude about doing his own model.

My Freebies

Agreed.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

Hallelujah!...Now go sign up at Poser U!

 

 

The model is my own when the mesh is entirely different and look and feel has more differences than similarities. Whether I have used the other model as inspiration or not is my own business and nobody's concern. If you don't agree you are entitled to sue, in fact I double dog dare you to sue. Otherwise mind your own business.

*The model is my own when the mesh is entirely different and look and feel has more differences than similarities. Whether I have used the other model as inspiration or not is my own business and nobody's concern. If you don't agree you are entitled to sue, in fact I double dog dare you to sue. Otherwise mind your own business.*

If you aplly that line of thought to figure creation,  then be prepared to create half a jillion JCM's.

 

Here's my mkV mesh.  No JCM's,  no spherical fall off zones for the Thighs,  and only 7000 polys.

 

 

Quote - Here's my mkV mesh.  No JCM's,  no spherical fall off zones for the Thighs,  and only 7000 polys.

What, you mean you used Capsule zones in Poser 8+?

My Freebies

Quote - ...  Here's my mkV mesh.  No JCM's,  no spherical fall off zones for the Thighs,  and only 7000 polys.

Very nice !!!

Can you post a wireframe of your figure? :blink:

Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"

cheers,

dr geep ... :o]

edited 10/5/2019

*What, you mean you used Capsule zones in Poser 8+?*

Nah,  i'm using P6 SR3 and Doc's tuts...

Very nice !!!

Can you post a wireframe of your figure?

Thanks!  Sure....(Oops)

 

 

This is the Ramses character for my mkV mesh...i'm trying to make a Posette compatible UVmap.

 

 

> Quote - *What, you mean you used Capsule zones in Poser 8+?* > > Nah,  i'm using P6 SR3 and Doc's tuts... > > *Very nice !!!* > > *Can you post a wireframe of your figure? * > > Thanks!  Sure....(Oops)

DAMN !!! ... I'm in love!

Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"

cheers,

dr geep ... :o]

edited 10/5/2019

SamTherapy makes a model of a Dalek, the well known villain from the BBC tv show Doctor Who. In order to avoid getting sued, he does not call it a Dalek, does not offer it for sale (it's a freebie) and the readme explicitly states it is not to be used for commercial purposes at all, and also acknowledges the original creators and copyright owners of the Daleks.

None of the above, however, are proof against being sued. The fact of the matter is, I have copied someone else's intellectual property. Whether or not I call it something else, charge for it or give it away or whatever I do is besides the point. If BBC Worldwide and/or the estate of Terry Nation decide to sue me, they'd most likely win."

 

So in essence, you shouldn't model anything that exists in the real world (either physically or as an idea), that was built either by a company, corpration or by an individual. And you certainly shouldn't give away that model.

That means that at least 50% of all the models ever made are borderline illeagal.  Lot's of modelers take pride in how close to the original object they are able to get. Most of the modeling tutorials use real life objects as reference. So often the whole point of modeling is to represent a real life object in 3d space. And what about all the beautiful, authentic looking car models out there, all of them should be considered illeagal?

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just pointing out the absurdity of the situation.

D'oh! Why do things that happen to stupid people keep happening to me?

DAMN !!! ... I'm in love!

 She says a box of Twinkies will get ya a date...  BUT if yer goin out to a restaurant better bring your platinum card.

 

 

Quote - That means that at least 50% of all the models ever made are borderline illeagal.

If they are derived from copyrighted material, yes, just so.  It's up to the copyright holder to try to enforce it, but it doesn't mean it's clean and legal/ethical to do it.  Typically only wealthy corporate types can actually take it to court but it's pretty common for brokerages like here and Turbosquid to comply with a fair showing of proof of origin (see many examples in Renderosity's history).

My Freebies

So we have one camp saying that all 3D models of real objects are illegal, and an other camp saying that plaIn models of real world objects are so common and unorginal that they are not even copyrightable. When shall you make up your mind? (This thread is really enjoyable)

Utilitarian objects, i.e. a chair, cannot be copyrighted, but they may qualify for a design patent.  Make a model to close to an actual, iconic real world item and you could be in trouble.

jestmart, "..and you could be in troubl"

It would be very helpful if you could show some links to precendents. And I don't mean big actors like Toyota and Disney but court decisions about 10 dollar objects..

Why would you need a $10 object? That's relevant only if you are confusing "is legal" with "is unlikely to be prosecuted". Your earlier summary is in any event wrong - the Toyota case appears to show that is a 3D model is an exact copy of a real item then the maker of the 3D model does not have any claim for copyright protection as they have not contributed anything original - that doesn't mean that both the original and the 3D model are not protected by copyright, just that the rights belong to the creator of the original: if a 3D model is somewhat original then it may well enjoy protection in its own right, and as long as it doesn't infringe upon another's copyright (or as long as the maker has permission to make a 3D version) that copyright would belong to the maker. Again, no one is saying all 3D models of real items are illegal (or rather infringing) - only that there's a good chance that models of items that are protected by copyright may very well be found to be so if challenged (and of course there are also trademarks to throw into consideration - which unlike copyright must be actively protected, so if the BBC learns of Sam Therapy's Daleks they may have to act whatever their feelings on the matter).

According to your reasoning all the hundreds of thousands of car models are illegal. Of course it is not so. Once a company has allowed 'fan art' or what you call it they can't renege, its a one way ticket, it becomes precedence. Then if the model can be copyrighted or not depends only on the degree of originality.

LINK

May be of interest...

 

 

Vintorix pretty much everything you're saying about copyright is dumb and wrong, and has been tested in court many many times.  Just FYI, thanks.

My Freebies

Quote - LINK

May be of interest...

for $100.00 ???

Sheesh, I knew lawyers were expensive BUT ...

OR ... Get a used copy for ~$3 ... What does that tell you? :blink:

Thnx 4 the link, anywho.

Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"

cheers,

dr geep ... :o]

edited 10/5/2019

for $100.00 ???

Sheesh, I knew lawyers were expensive BUT ...

OR ... Get a used copy for ~$3 ... What does that tell you?

 

Give up 3dmodeling,  go to law school,  write a book,  then use it to line the birdcage?

LOL!

 

 

Yup!

Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"

cheers,

dr geep ... :o]

edited 10/5/2019

LOL!  i could start in on the lawyer jokes but i'm tryin' real hard to get off of Anna's naughty list.

 

 

> Quote - LOL!  i could start in on the lawyer jokes but i'm tryin' real hard to get off of > ***Anna's naughty list***.

???????????????????????? HUH? :blink:

---

re: your "wish" link (see image above)

Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"

cheers,

dr geep ... :o]

edited 10/5/2019

Anna's a lawyer where my Aunt works.  She specializes in business law.  i got sued by them for $120.  They allowed me to split it up into 6 payments,  though. 

Anyhoo,  once i'm off her naughty list,  she's gonna handle all the incorporation stuff.  Probably wouldn't be a bad idea to talk about copyrights...

 

 

Quote - Anna's a lawyer where my Aunt works.  She specializes in business law.  i got sued by them for $120.  They allowed me to split it up into 6 payments,  though. 

Anyhoo,  once i'm off her naughty list,  she's gonna handle all the incorporation stuff.  Probably wouldn't be a bad idea to talk about copyrights...

$120.00 ??????   WOW, musta been purdy B.A.D., no? :lol:

Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"

cheers,

dr geep ... :o]

edited 10/5/2019

"Probably wouldn't be a bad idea to talk about copyrights..."

 

Except that only specialed lawyers know anything about copyright...

LOL!  It was a doctor bill.  The doctor's secretary typed in the wrong code and my insurance company wouldn't pay it until she used the correct code.

 

I'll ask my Aunt if they have a copyright lawyer.  She should know,  she's worked there for 43 years.

 

 

 

That would be super, then maybe we could sort out a thing or two!

Otherwise, Mona Ibrahim at Imua in Seattle is an international repected and acknowled expert in the field.

 

i just googled Mona's site,  i wonder if we should contact her.

 

 

 

I envy you if you do, there are no one in Sweden that are even near that kind of expertice.

E-mail sent.  Hopefully she'll reply.

 

 

The final answer is the same for every law-related one: the ONLY thing that matters is HOW MUCH MONEY you and your opponent can throw at their respective legal teams.

For further references, contact Antonio Meucci (an example of too little money) or O.J. Simpson (first trial, an example of enough money).

GIMP 2.7.4, Inkscape 0.48, Genetica 3.6 Basic, FilterForge 3 Professional, Blender 2.61, SketchUp 8, PoserPro 2012, Vue 10 Infinite, World Machine 2.3, GeoControl 2

Quote - Can copyrights,  trademarks and patents be inherited through wills?

The main difference between Copyrights and the other two is that the death of the creator starts the clock on the remaining time (something like 70 years) that the Estate has to exploit them before the work enters into the Public Domain.
I supsect that the only thing that can't be transferred is the Moral Rights (e.g. the right to be identified as the creator of the work).  

Quote - > Quote - That means that at least 50% of all the models ever made are borderline illeagal.

If they are derived from copyrighted material, yes, just so.  It's up to the copyright holder to try to enforce it, but it doesn't mean it's clean and legal/ethical to do it.  Typically only wealthy corporate types can actually take it to court but it's pretty common for brokerages like here and Turbosquid to comply with a fair showing of proof of origin (see many examples in Renderosity's history).

Well, I bought a gun model from the marketplace here (I simply can not model good looking guns myself yet) a couple of weeks a go, and I am almost 100% sure that the model in question is based on a real life gun.  In fact it's a pretty accurate representation of the real gun. I  assume that the real gun is copyrighted.  So one could argue based on what is being said here, that the gun model that I bought is infact illeagal.

If I were to model say, Aston Martin Db9 based on the blueprints I dowloaded from the web ( perfectly legal website as far as I know) and released the said model, I would be commiting a crime?

I'm not a lawyer myself, but for my part I think that these intellectual property laws  are absurd.  And if the legal system ever enforced these laws fully, 50% of all people making 3d art would be either in jail, or paying huge  compensations to corporations.

 

D'oh! Why do things that happen to stupid people keep happening to me?

Quote -The main difference between Copyrights and the other two is that the death of the creator starts the clock on the remaining time (something like 70 years) that the Estate has to exploit them before the work enters into the Public Domain.I supsect that the only thing that can't be transferred is the Moral Rights (e.g. the right to be identified as the creator of the work).

i wonder how "Power of Attorney" would work concerning copyrights?

Quote -Well, I bought a gun

Why does the Poserverse have to be so violent?

 

 

Quote - ...

Well, I bought a gun model from the marketplace here (I simply can not model good looking guns myself yet) a couple of weeks a go, and I am almost 100% sure that the model in question is based on a real life gun.  In fact it's a pretty accurate representation of the real gun. I  assume that the real gun is copyrighted.  So one could argue based on what is being said here, that the gun model that I bought is infact illeagal.

I guess this is a common misunderstanding of the word 'illegal', which suggests that doing something 'illegal' is a crime. You are probably right in that the original gun is copyrighted by someone (say Mr. Colt) and the model was done without permission. But the point one should not forget here, is that the whole copyright is (in most countries at least) part of the civil law, not the criminal law. Which means it would become only "illegal" if Mr. Colt somehow gets hurt (financially or otherwise) by you buying the model, which is probably simply not the case.

Quote - If I were to model say, Aston Martin Db9 based on the blueprints I dowloaded from the web ( perfectly legal website as far as I know) and released the said model, I would be commiting a crime?

Surely not a crime in a judicial sense, maybe a copyright infringement. You probably simply cannot check the exact legal status of the blueprint on that website, so you just make your model, release it and if someone happens to be offended by it you will be informed one way or the other.

Quote - I'm not a lawyer myself, but for my part I think that these intellectual property laws  are absurd.  And if the legal system ever enforced these laws fully, 50% of all people making 3d art would be either in jail, or paying huge  compensations to corporations.

 

There is no punishment for copyright infringement (in spite of the dismay of many modelers probably), so there is no enforcement or even jail in for you. You could still pay some compensations, though. Imagine your Aston-Martin-Model is to be used for the next James-Bond-Movie, so the movie company pays you some million dollars, while letting the Aston-Martin-Designer (who made the blueprints) and his 12 hungry kids have nothing, it would only be fair for you to pay some compensations.

Read this, please.

http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/unprotected.html

"However, there is no copyright in the cut of the cloth, or the design of the skirt or jacket as a whole, since these articles are utilitarian. This is true even of fanciful costumes; no copyright protection is granted to the costume as a whole."

Exactly so, the whole fashion industry is without protection, and manage very well without it.

Quote - > Quote - ...

Well, I bought a gun model from the marketplace here (I simply can not model good looking guns myself yet) a couple of weeks a go, and I am almost 100% sure that the model in question is based on a real life gun.  In fact it's a pretty accurate representation of the real gun. I  assume that the real gun is copyrighted.  So one could argue based on what is being said here, that the gun model that I bought is infact illeagal.

I guess this is a common misunderstanding of the word 'illegal', which suggests that doing something 'illegal' is a crime. You are probably right in that the original gun is copyrighted by someone (say Mr. Colt) and the model was done without permission. But the point one should not forget here, is that the whole copyright is (in most countries at least) part of the civil law, not the criminal law. Which means it would become only "illegal" if Mr. Colt somehow gets hurt (financially or otherwise) by you buying the model, which is probably simply not the case.

Quote - If I were to model say, Aston Martin Db9 based on the blueprints I dowloaded from the web ( perfectly legal website as far as I know) and released the said model, I would be commiting a crime?

Surely not a crime in a judicial sense, maybe a copyright infringement. You probably simply cannot check the exact legal status of the blueprint on that website, so you just make your model, release it and if someone happens to be offended by it you will be informed one way or the other.

Quote - I'm not a lawyer myself, but for my part I think that these intellectual property laws  are absurd.  And if the legal system ever enforced these laws fully, 50% of all people making 3d art would be either in jail, or paying huge  compensations to corporations.

 

There is no punishment for copyright infringement (in spite of the dismay of many modelers probably), so there is no enforcement or even jail in for you. You could still pay some compensations, though. Imagine your Aston-Martin-Model is to be used for the next James-Bond-Movie, so the movie company pays you some million dollars, while letting the Aston-Martin-Designer (who made the blueprints) and his 12 hungry kids have nothing, it would only be fair for you to pay some compensations.

Thank you for bringing some much needed clarity into this discussion.  I am not a lawyer myself, neither have I ever studied law, so I am simply not qualified in interpreting copyright laws.

If I understood the gist of your argument then; if my actions bring (financial) harm to the person who owns the copyright  , then under the legal system I am obligated to pay compensation and/or face other punishment.

 But if I were to model say, Aston martin db9 and If I got no financial compensation for it and if that model wouldn't harm the copyright holder in any way, I would not be comitting a crime.

So in conlucions; the gun model I bought, wasn't in fact illegal, since it most likely didn't hurt the owner of the copyright in any way.

D'oh! Why do things that happen to stupid people keep happening to me?

Financial harm, by understanding, would come into play when calculating any damages due to the owner of the copyright. The fact that you weren't gaining, however, would not mean you were free to infringe - and if the copyright owner took legal action to stop your infringement, or simply issued a valid DMCA notice, and you ignored any court ruling or filed a false DMCA counter-notice you would be committing a crime.

Quote - Financial harm, by understanding, would come into play when calculating any damages due to the owner of the copyright. The fact that you weren't gaining, however, would not mean you were free to infringe - and if the copyright owner took legal action to stop your infringement, or simply issued a valid DMCA notice, and you ignored any court ruling or filed a false DMCA counter-notice you would be committing a crime.

Yes, I see. Thank you for clearing this up for me.  Very helpful.

D'oh! Why do things that happen to stupid people keep happening to me?