Well, before my response just gets burried in the other thread figured I'd post it here:

Called:

Art Room Tattoo Galary in Woonsocket, RI.

I explained to Mike at the Gallery everything that I was trying to do with the tattoo images I saw online, and even selling them as texture sets for characters.

He basically said that the only time that copyright enfringment takes place is if you try to save the image, and you get blocked from saving it, you can't use it.  Otherwise, you are free to use those tattoo designs that you saw online. 

I explained how I was going to consider selling them as a texture set for 3D figures, and that way he understood my sole intention of them, so there we have it folks.

Right from a Tattoo parlor themselves, I'm good to go....

Gonna have fun now

 

 

 

Poser Pro 2012/3DS Max 2013/Adobe Photoshop Elements 10/Zbrush/

PC: HP Z820 Workstation, 3.30 ghz 8 core Intel Processor, 2gig nvidia Quadro, 16 gig of Ram and 2TB Hard Drive.

 

'''He basically said that the only time that copyright enfringment takes place is if you try to save the image, and you get blocked from saving it, you can't use it.  Otherwise, you are free to use those tattoo designs that you saw online. '''

 

 

sorry I missed your earlier post, but unless he was specifically talking about rules on his personal site, I will have to totally disagree with that info

 

(in other words if he was specifically talking about the rules for his own site, then plse disregard this reply)

Quote - Well, before my response just gets burried in the other thread figured I'd post it here:

Called:

Art Room Tattoo Galary in Woonsocket, RI.

I explained to Mike at the Gallery everything that I was trying to do with the tattoo images I saw online, and even selling them as texture sets for characters.

He basically said that the only time that copyright enfringment takes place is if you try to save the image, and you get blocked from saving it, you can't use it.  Otherwise, you are free to use those tattoo designs that you saw online. 

I explained how I was going to consider selling them as a texture set for 3D figures, and that way he understood my sole intention of them, so there we have it folks.

Right from a Tattoo parlor themselves, I'm good to go....

Gonna have fun now

 

 

WHAT??!!!

That's complete and utter horseshit and don't you DARE use anything you "find on the internet" You'll get in trouble I am telling you. Is the guy that told you to use anything there the one that created em? If he's not, he can't give you permission. If he is you better get it in writing. "Save thine own ass at all times" Rules to live by if you wanna be a merchant.

Laurie

Thanks all -- I am really trying to do my homework here regarding it. 

The thing is a lot of tattoos seem to be skulls, etc. and I suck at drawing those things.

Guess a Tattoo product won't be coming from me then, like the T-shirts, but at least I can use them in my own artwork in the background that way.  So I don't really mind in that aspect.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm - kinda suprised.  He seemed to know what he was talking about too....:sad:

 

Poser Pro 2012/3DS Max 2013/Adobe Photoshop Elements 10/Zbrush/

PC: HP Z820 Workstation, 3.30 ghz 8 core Intel Processor, 2gig nvidia Quadro, 16 gig of Ram and 2TB Hard Drive.

 

Good Gawd there is so much misinformation out there.

Do we really have to start putting right-click-save-as disabling javascript on all of our websites to stop idiots from rationalizing their infringement?

All I can say is, wow. I really thought people were more educated than that.

Mind you, I remember telling my MIL that she could be sued for damages for using people's online wedding photos to advertize her products.  Her response was, "Well, if it were me, I'd be flattered."   So I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

She eventually replaced all the images with ones purchased from a reputable stock photography site.  But she had to do some research on her own before she believed me.

Johnny, you seem to be struggling with these issues -- and no surprise, they are very complex -- though for our purposes, they don't have to be. I use the rule that if something was published after January 1, 1923, I must get permission to use it.  That permission may be a license, as in a Renderosity license, issued by the creator, or a written notice of  permission by the creator -- or it may be a blanket statement by a website, such as NASA or NOAA, that explains exactly what is public domain on their site.  But without EXPRESS permission from the creators or rights holders, I do not use someone else's work.

Yes, people violate it all the time.  Yes people get away with it.  Yes, there are all kinds of exceptions that muddy the waters. Yes, like cheating on your taxes or speeding, you may well manage to escape detection.  But if you are planning on making commercial content for sale, you really do need to familiarize yourself with the basics, otherwise you risk some nasty payback.

There's a copyright forum here.  No one goes there, but at the top of the forum there are some good links you should probably read.

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showforum.php?forum_id=12395

ETA:

If you need images, such as skulls, you will find some, but you have to be willing to do some work finding them. Nothing good is completely free.

Check out the resources on this page.  I would not assume that every resource is guaranteed to be completely legitimate in this list (do some homework), but most are very good.  It's a starting point, in any case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_domain_image_resources

You might also check out Creative Commons resources.  Read what the licenses mean and what your responsibilities are regarding usage, and then have fun.

http://search.creativecommons.org/

---

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

Thanks moriador, I will check into them, it is very confusing for me, especially someone just starting out.

I'm sure in time I'll be just as knowledgable as the next person, but I like your rule of thumb to live by, anything after 1923 is copyright.

Thanks again for your explanations, and do appreciate everyone looking out for me on this site.

 

Poser Pro 2012/3DS Max 2013/Adobe Photoshop Elements 10/Zbrush/

PC: HP Z820 Workstation, 3.30 ghz 8 core Intel Processor, 2gig nvidia Quadro, 16 gig of Ram and 2TB Hard Drive.

 

copyright can be a complex issue. Your best (easiest) option is to find some work that you like and ask the artists for permission to use them.

Good Idea to Mark --- think I will go with that as well.....I did find some really cool tattoos, I'd love to have for ink for M4.

 

Poser Pro 2012/3DS Max 2013/Adobe Photoshop Elements 10/Zbrush/

PC: HP Z820 Workstation, 3.30 ghz 8 core Intel Processor, 2gig nvidia Quadro, 16 gig of Ram and 2TB Hard Drive.

 

There are many brushes which you can use in GIMP and Photoshop which have skulls and rock n roll gothic styling blah blah.  You'll still have to get commercial use permission or buy them from creators, but once you got them, surely you could use those instead of taking them off pictures on the internet ?

search terms: emo, goth, gothic

 

 

Eternal Hobbyist

 

Johnny,

Have you considered using poser to generate the images you want?

Daz morphing Skull,Toon Shaders

Something like that work for you?

 

Bill

People that know everything by definition can not learn anything

For personal use, There is NO problem.

THE problem starts when you want to make money from something you did not make yourself.

Only the legal owner can give the authorisation to use his/her legal property.

---

But, different countries different laws.

In some countries, if you want to sell something?
The buyer HAS to be able to reproduce ecactly what is ON the box with what is IN the box.

All items used in the Promo pictures on the cover, HAVE to be inside.
Be it hard-or software.

A decade ago a very big toymaker got into some serious trouble over this issue.
Had to close a very profitable multi million dollar company for that.

if my memory does not let me down; it was some sort of Meccano thing.
And they has a very nice promotion constructon picture on the cover of the box.

Problem was; You had to buy 2 boxes to have enough parts to build the thing.
The lawsuit got out of control and the company had to close.

---

Stay safe and do not try to "sell" if you do not have written permission of the legal owner.

When money gets involved?? The strangest things happen.

Even in a stupit tread as the "Low Poly Army tread" here, I pay attention of what I put together and what I show.

Poser 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, P8 and PPro2010, P9 and PP2012, P10 and PP2014 Game Dev
"Do not drive faster then your angel can fly"!

Copyright and things found in the breakroom at work = if it aint yours, hands off.  If you intend to touch it anyway, get ready for a fight unless the legal owner says before hand you can have it.

I was thinking of making those mud flap / window sticker female figures using Poser so I could make what I wanted, in color, and just print to sticker paper for my own amusement.  As long as I do not copy an existing pose, I should be okay, since I do not think the concept is protected by law, but I am doing some homework just to be sure.  These would not be for sale, but depriving a copyright holder of legitimate income is what this is all about - no pirating.

Quote - He basically said that the only time that copyright enfringment takes place is if you try to save the image, and you get blocked from saving it, you can't use it.  Otherwise, you are free to use those tattoo designs that you saw online.

Quote - Do we really have to start putting right-click-save-as disabling javascript on all of our websites to stop idiots from rationalizing their infringement?

How??? In mine FireFox browser I don't know what can be saved or not, all can be saved and right click always works. Even copy and paste in this forum post do work !

Stupidity also evolves!

That is a safe and sound idea.

If it aint yours? Hands OFF !

Poser 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, P8 and PPro2010, P9 and PP2012, P10 and PP2014 Game Dev
"Do not drive faster then your angel can fly"!

I didn't look too hard but as far as I can see, those folks don't even have a website - just the usual yellow pages type listings so he may not even have any skin in the game - sorry, I couldn't resist. To reiterate what everyone else said, other than any of his personal works that he has posted online, what he is advising is just dangerous ignorance.

Willyb53 has a good idea, condider using Poser to generate your own material. Better yet, maybe there's a local tattoo artist that might let you use some of his/her designs in return for some cash or maybe just credit. My neighbor's son does some really nice, albeit a bit creepy designs. Unfortunately, I think he's back in the school where he learned his skills (at state expense). Apparently tattoos are really big on that campus :-)

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

Quote - Better yet, maybe there's a local tattoo artist that might let you use some of his/her designs in return for some cash or maybe just credit. My neighbor's son does some really nice, albeit a bit creepy designs.

This solves nothing the problem. People that makes tatoos also copy them from somewhere. "I want a tatoo like this" and he does it for you !

Stupidity also evolves!

if a tattoo artist will take on Warner Bros ( http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/05/02/can-you-copyright-a-tattoo/ ) I would hate to think you risked a few quid yet alone your house etc

much safer if you make your own designs, as everyone here keeps saying lol, and since your only doing it digitaly you could even use one of the fractal generators am pretty sure no tattoo artist in the world could do a fractal well on a twitching sweaty muscle ;-)

That's a tatoo parlor to avoid because he's full of it.  It's a guarantee that he's stealing copyrighted artwork. 

You absolutely cannot just use anything you find on the internet in a commercial endeavor.   His advice was pure bullsh...

...... Kendra

"A decade ago a very big toymaker got into some serious trouble over this issue.
Had to close a very profitable multi million dollar company for that.

"if my memory does not let me down; it was some sort of Meccano thing.
And they has a very nice promotion constructon picture on the cover of the box.

"Problem was; You had to buy 2 boxes to have enough parts to build the thing.
The lawsuit got out of control and the company had to close."

That example has nothing to do with using someone else's copyrighted material.

 If you are looking for building parts to put together tats... check out go media they have royalety free vectors for just about anything... though they are certainly not free to come by, or even here at rero there are quite a few brush packs you could use to put together your own tats as you buy those with a commercial license.

it may be slightly off topic, but i'm now finding myself have to check the terms of use for stuff here even  in free stuff. A recent example are Tabalas Mats in the freestuff section. The download link is to sharecg, where the "freebies" are now listed as "All rights reserved". For display purposes only.

There is another option though Jonnhy, find a decent Tattoo artist with a good website and approach him and offer him a cut. It's no different than having to be satisfied with some half *ss tatt that you are using out of desparation and paid through the ying yang for.

OS: Windows7 64-bit Processor Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2430M CPU @ 2.40GHz, 2401 Mhz, 2 Core(s), 4 Logical Processor(s)  6GB Ram
Poser: Poser Pro 2012 SR3.1 ...Poser 8.........Poser5 on a bad day........
Daz Studio Pro 4.5  64bit

Carrara beta 8.5

Modelling: Silo/Hexagon/Groboto V3
Image Editing: PSP V9/Irfanview
Movie Editing. Cyberlink power director/Windows live movie maker

"I live in an unfinished , poorly lit box, but we call it home"

My freestuff   

 link via my artist page

@flibbits

I gave an example of what lawsuit can do if it gets out of control.

It is not worth the risk.

Poser 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, P8 and PPro2010, P9 and PP2012, P10 and PP2014 Game Dev
"Do not drive faster then your angel can fly"!

better get that in writing...can never be too safe.

 

Quote - Well, before my response just gets burried in the other thread figured I'd post it here:

Called:

Art Room Tattoo Galary in Woonsocket, RI.

I explained to Mike at the Gallery everything that I was trying to do with the tattoo images I saw online, and even selling them as texture sets for characters.

He basically said that the only time that copyright enfringment takes place is if you try to save the image, and you get blocked from saving it, you can't use it.  Otherwise, you are free to use those tattoo designs that you saw online. 

I explained how I was going to consider selling them as a texture set for 3D figures, and that way he understood my sole intention of them, so there we have it folks.

Right from a Tattoo parlor themselves, I'm good to go....

Gonna have fun now

 

 

Quote - better get that in writing...can never be too safe.

 

Quote - Well, before my response just gets burried in the other thread figured I'd post it here:

Called:

Art Room Tattoo Galary in Woonsocket, RI.

I explained to Mike at the Gallery everything that I was trying to do with the tattoo images I saw online, and even selling them as texture sets for characters.

He basically said that the only time that copyright enfringment takes place is if you try to save the image, and you get blocked from saving it, you can't use it.  Otherwise, you are free to use those tattoo designs that you saw online. 

I explained how I was going to consider selling them as a texture set for 3D figures, and that way he understood my sole intention of them, so there we have it folks.

Right from a Tattoo parlor themselves, I'm good to go....

Gonna have fun now

 

 

 

There is nothing to get in writing because not one bit of that so-called advice was accurate in the least. 

...... Kendra

Quote - > Quote - better get that in writing...can never be too safe.

 

Quote - Well, before my response just gets burried in the other thread figured I'd post it here:

Called:

Art Room Tattoo Galary in Woonsocket, RI.

I explained to Mike at the Gallery everything that I was trying to do with the tattoo images I saw online, and even selling them as texture sets for characters.

He basically said that the only time that copyright enfringment takes place is if you try to save the image, and you get blocked from saving it, you can't use it.  Otherwise, you are free to use those tattoo designs that you saw online. 

I explained how I was going to consider selling them as a texture set for 3D figures, and that way he understood my sole intention of them, so there we have it folks.

Right from a Tattoo parlor themselves, I'm good to go....

Gonna have fun now

 

 

 

There is nothing to get in writing because not one bit of that so-called advice was accurate in the least. 

What Kendra said.  Absolutely this.  Do not under any circumstances listen to this particular tattoo guy because he's talking out of his backside.

Just because somebody tells you something that's convenient, nice to hear and makes life a lot easier for you doesn't mean it's true.  Please follow the advice given by experienced people here or you are inviting a whole hell of a lot of trouble.

It breaks down like this:

If you made it yourself from completely original sources and it isn't based on an existing design or trademarked item or character, you can use it.

If you bought it from somewhere and they grant you the rights to use it commercially and they are legitimate (that's to say, they haven't stolen or copied it from elsewhere which includes existing designs, trademarked items or characters etc), you can use it.

If someone gives you something and they grant you the rights to use it commercially and they are legitimate (as above), you can use it.

Otherwise, it's completely and utterly hands off, no matter what anyone else says.

That's it, simple, the end. 

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

Seconding Kendra (and pretty much everyone else).

The advice you were given there is completely and totally bunk, and it would not surprise me if this guy lands himself in court sooner or later if he's fool enough to follow it himself.

This isn't the first thread like this you've posted, so I have some concerns that maybe spending some time looking into the real legalities of what can and can't be used would be of major benefit to you. That time seems to be spent looking for loopholes instead of looking for proper tools and resources that can be legitimately used in a legal and professional manner.

Information right from the horse's mouth: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html

"How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission?
Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports." This generally means: 'not what we're doing as vendors pretty much ever', so we don't get a pass here.

**"How much do I have to change in order to claim copyright in someone else's work?
** Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. Accordingly, you cannot claim copyright to another's work, no matter how much you change it, unless you have the owner's consent." In other words, all that 'but if you change 10% of it, it becomes yours and you can do whatever you want with it!' gossip you hear on the internet and elsewhere is false.

The following links should also prove helpful:

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

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter0/0-b.html -- The best and clearest advice here is this: "With one important exception, you should assume that every work is protected by copyright unless you can establish that it is not. As mentioned above, you can't rely on the presence or absence of a copyright notice (©) to make this determination, because a notice is not required for works published after March 1, 1989. And even for works published before 1989, the absence of a copyright notice may not affect the validity of the copyright -- for example, if the author made diligent attempts to correct the situation.

The exception is for materials put to work under the "fair use rule." This rule recognizes that society can often benefit from the unauthorized use of copyrighted materials when the purpose of the use serves the ends of scholarship, education or an informed public." Again, everything we are doing as commercial content vendors is not something that falls under the 'fair use' exception.

Hope this helps. :)

-D
---
It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye texture.

Quote - Seconding Kendra (and pretty much everyone else).

This isn't the first thread like this you've posted, so I have some concerns that maybe spending some time looking into the real legalities of what can and can't be used would be of major benefit to you. That time seems to be spent looking for loopholes instead of looking for proper tools and resources that can be legitimately used in a legal and professional manner.

I do appreciate the advice here.  You have no need for concerns for any illegal actions by me in modeling, and or texture creation.  I ask first to be sure.  I may ask several times if I find it confusing,  so sorry if that seems to bother you. 

Would you prefer if I didn't ask first and just did?  No, you wouldn't would you.

In probably contrary to your belief, I do adhere to everyone's advice here in the forums.  They have been most helpful.

Sorry if I seem to "bother" you.

 

Poser Pro 2012/3DS Max 2013/Adobe Photoshop Elements 10/Zbrush/

PC: HP Z820 Workstation, 3.30 ghz 8 core Intel Processor, 2gig nvidia Quadro, 16 gig of Ram and 2TB Hard Drive.

 

No bothering done, no worries there. :)

My concern is simply that Renderosity takes copyright issues quite seriously, and of all the issues a new vendor can run up against, having that particular strike held against you would make things considerably harder for a long time to come.

If someone has good, fun ideas, having legal problems come as the result of them can be very discouraging, and can rapidly decrease their interest in creating things, period, especially if they really don't seem to see it coming. Imagine walking through the woods, looking up at the trees, feeling the sun on your face... and then tripping into a bear trap. Not my definition of a good time, for sure! ...I certainly wouldn't be too keen on hiking after that.

I'm pretty serious about being pro-imagination. ;) That means strongly encouraging people to create, create, create. It's just a considerably more tricksy process than a lot of people think to keep on the safe side, and avoid the bear traps. This is especially hard at the beginning when a lot of misinformation is spread regularly -- even in art schools, by well-meaning professors! That's why that 'myths about copyright' page is one of the best, in my view, on the subject.

-D
---
It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye texture.

Thanks --- glad I'm not bothering or pestering anyone by the questions.  To me, that's the only way that we do learn.

It can be difficult granted, but I'm by no means discouraged from creating that easily.

I know I can use things in the background that I create if they were like that, so that's ot a big deal there.  

In fact, I'm planning on getting into vending full time, I'm buying a beefed up system in a few weeks, so that's why I figured I should ask all the questions here now, and get the knowledge before I start developing.

The system I'm getting is just the sort of thing for this, Windows 7 Ultimate 64 Bit, 12 Gigs of Ram, nVidia Tesla card, and a intel xeon 3.30ghz processor with up to 16 cores it can handle, and I'm going to try and go for the most.

I have Poser 8 so I'm hoping that will help speed up render time and compiling time of models when they're finished. 

I do appreciate the help here, its my only 3D forum I visit. In fact, I do follow just about all advice here, and try almost any suggestion given when I do have a problem, unless of course one fixes it first......

Have a great weekend, signing off shortly so won't be on again for the night soon.

 

 

Poser Pro 2012/3DS Max 2013/Adobe Photoshop Elements 10/Zbrush/

PC: HP Z820 Workstation, 3.30 ghz 8 core Intel Processor, 2gig nvidia Quadro, 16 gig of Ram and 2TB Hard Drive.

 

I'm glad you're checking for answers, indeed!

I think a part of the confusion that emerges about copyright is that, in much of life, we're generally accustomed to being able to do as we wish unless we're explicitly told 'no' for some reason (be it law, religious strictures, etc.). No one, for instance, told me I can't be nibbling on ice cream at the moment... even if it meant sticking dinner in the fridge until breakfast. innocent whistling

When it comes to copyright issues, the thought process (necessarily) works completely in reverse of that: the default is 'no' unless and until you get a concrete 'yes' from the specific copyright owner.

That reversal of thinking is actually the easiest way for people to approach the subject initially, I think. It really is completely the opposite of what we're used to in a lot of aspects of life.

-D
---
It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye texture.

Ragtopjohnny, I wouldn't worry about bothering people in the forums...

My experience here is that if you are bothering people, they will remark on it in the thread itself.  People don't seem to be shy.  But you'll know when you're really bothering people because no one will reply to your posts.

Copyright is extremely complex, which is why some lawyers specialize in it.  Having these sort of discussions in the forums is never bad.  Think how many people may be reading these threads and learning from them, people who may never post, but who still need the answers to the questions you're asking.

---

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

Cool --- thanks.  Glad to know I'm not pestering at all with these types of questions.

 

 

Poser Pro 2012/3DS Max 2013/Adobe Photoshop Elements 10/Zbrush/

PC: HP Z820 Workstation, 3.30 ghz 8 core Intel Processor, 2gig nvidia Quadro, 16 gig of Ram and 2TB Hard Drive.

 

johnny, if it looks like any of them are angry or upset (histrionic), try ignoring them.  we should have gotten past the days when they were allowed to beat up on poser newbies, but apparently some of them didn't get the message.

Thanks Miss Nancy -- appreciate that.  I realize theres those types in every forum that you go to, no matter where it is.....

 

 

Poser Pro 2012/3DS Max 2013/Adobe Photoshop Elements 10/Zbrush/

PC: HP Z820 Workstation, 3.30 ghz 8 core Intel Processor, 2gig nvidia Quadro, 16 gig of Ram and 2TB Hard Drive.

 

browquirk Who on earth is 'they'? Fellow vendors not wanting to see someone step into a legal minefield when they're just getting started?

And since when did spending time digging up references and information to share to help someone avoid potential discouragement, expense, MP restrictions, and legal trouble translate to 'beating someone up'?

-D
---
It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye texture.

I'm not so sure the comment was directed at you, or anyone for that matter.  My guess is it's a general remark.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

Coolness... was just a little worried since I was the one who seemed to cause some upset (which wasn't intentional at all). My communication skillz are mad indeed... but generally more in the 'as a hatter' sense of the word.

I mean, it would suck royally to get everything together and then get bounced from being able to sell here (which is a kick@ss place to be a vendor in my experience) over something that is fairly easily avoided. I would hate to see that happen to -anybody-.

-D
---
It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye texture.

Not at you at all surreality --- we're cool, I know you're trying to help.  It's appreciated.  I appreciate everyone's help here in this forum, I just understand that sometimes people don't understand the millions of questions newbies can have at time.

All's good.

 

Poser Pro 2012/3DS Max 2013/Adobe Photoshop Elements 10/Zbrush/

PC: HP Z820 Workstation, 3.30 ghz 8 core Intel Processor, 2gig nvidia Quadro, 16 gig of Ram and 2TB Hard Drive.

 

No one is beating anyone up over this.  This just happens to be a heated subject.

 Johnny, feel free to ask any questions.  You're likely to get several responses and many will repeat but there is a lot of info from experienced artists and vendors to be had here.  Ask away.  :)

...... Kendra

Quote - Johnny,

Have you considered using poser to generate the images you want?

Daz morphing Skull,Toon Shaders

Something like that work for you?

 

Bill

 

 

 

+1

My Store   My Gallery    Contact

What I find interesting is that someone who deals with putting images on another person's skin would be so willing to give an honest person some bad advise that could land them in a heap of trouble.

I've had my dealing with tattoo artists, many have seen my work on my galleries and have asked if they could use the images in their own shops, even going as far as to show me the finished product.  And I have to admit that I am honored by this, as an artist I love to know that people enjoy what I do.

But I have seen other times when tattoo artists use my sketch work in their resume portfolios, without my permission and it does bother me.  Luckily I am not about going after them with brimstone and fire, if they cannot draw then their lies will get them in the end.  Still not all artists are so easily deterred from legal action, so it is best to be careful and if you see an image that intrigues you contact the artist and give them your idea.  Who knows, they might be excited to hear what you will use their work for.

:)

The tattoo artist may not have been deliberately giving bad advice, but may simply be ignorant of copyright matters-- after all, many people are, and many people are under the illusion that anything on the internet is "free to take" unless specifically marked otherwise.  And there are also plenty who feel free to take stuff even if it is marked otherwise. 

D'oh, I kept forgetting... check out photoshop brushes by Deviney. He has a set of 'Skulls' somewhere -- I forget if it's here, or DAZ, but it's a great pack. I've bought from him frequently on both sites and never regretted a single one; they're amazingly useful and he does a really great job with them. It has a lot of fantastic options for tattoo designs, as it also includes a number of 'background elements' that are tribal designs, lightning, etc. so it's not just a pile o' bones. :) (I totally blanked on the existence of this one until I just had to use it for something myself.)

It would likely come in very handy for goth or rock tee shirt designs as well, so it may be a good investment to use for both packs, as well as future uses!

-D
---
It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye texture.

Theres a free pack of skull brushes on one of the computer mags this month. Usually no problems with that source. BTW - them be fair questions as well chap. If you don't know always best to ask. Also better safe than sorry as well.

Pinky - you left the lens cap of your mind on again.

Actually the things on the Internet that can be downloaded Like Images are free to use.exept it has ben mentioned in another way ... before getting a Image reading the terms of usage , signing a disclamer before downloading , not being able to get the Images without being registred. this is all what the Internet can offer you if you really wanna protect your creations. Otherwise offering a Image without a disclamer in full size just to download would be a misleading offer to be able in a later state to atack somone who used a fragment of the Product. 

Ilegal it is to pretend to be the originall creator of the Image. you would have to give or mention credit for the usage. actually not the Image is copyrighted but the signature of the Creator.

as a sample : A collage is fully Legal to be created , it is already mentioned into the Description Collage = assemblage of different Images not created by my self but reasemled to present another creation , the new signature of that creator is fully Valid, no matter where the Prints or Images came from and have ben cut out to create the Collage. and is comparable with the creation of Textures, for your models. 

If somone does whant to prevent the usage for further comercial use he is obligated to Watermark the Image and this is what watermaks are here for. or the Image has to be presented as Low resolution or small Print so that it would be actually useless for any other Purposes. 

Every copyrighted Product has to be registred in the copyright office. it has to be set into there achives and you will be given a copyright number , serial witch has to be added into the copyrighted Product disclamer. 

I am sorry, but that information is just wrong!

Is registration required?It is a common misconception to confuse copyright registration with the granting of copyright.

Copyright is itself an automatic international right, governed by international conventions - principally the Berne Convention (which dates from 1886). This means that copyright exists whether a work is registered or not. When the US signed up to the Convention in 1989, the internal registration system was retained, but foreign works must now be treated as though already registered in the US in accordance with the Berne Convention.

Professor Lawrence Lessig, Representative Lofgren and others have suggested that countries impose registration requirements after the internal term of protection required by the Berne Convention.[citation needed]

 

Bill

People that know everything by definition can not learn anything

The signature will be automaticly Copyright protected without Registration that is true!

I Repeat Ilegall it is to pretend that you created an Image that another Made. Also the Copyright of Digital Images have not been addapted to the Law it goes under Application's Law( Digital Applications ) not to be confused with Paintings and materialistic copyright.

so as for using fragments of Provided free Images for a Collage on a Texturing would be  a Legal Usage! as Long as your Eula does not pretend that all the contains are made by your self giving credit to the originall creator or if not known giving credit to a Image collection of uhnknown Providers , as Digital Imaging mostly do not have a signature of the originall creator.

It also depends on where you come from as each Cautry handles Copyright in a different way , In swiss it is waay more flexible then In the US witch is rather the case to prevent artists to be creative.

We Here can for example Buy a PS3 change the HD and will not Loose the guarantee. we are allowed to save any digital Product on the Internet , witch is not allowed in the States. It is even Allowed to create a Digital Copy of your Bought DVD's or Music cd's and store them as Backup or for usage on a server.

So to say each has to Consult the regional law about Copyright.

If a Product is offered for Free and is not further Protected it is commen sence that it is a gift . You can cut , in this case an image appart and Make the collage as you wish. 

2ond..... 

Would it be the case as a Sample!!  Leonardo Paintings ... How many times has it been reproduced , how many times cut appart ... as long as the Signature of the originall Creator remains it is Legal to add a fragment of a Picture of such a Painting into a Modelled Digital Building , else we would Talk again abuot hundreds of sold Products that have been created Ilegally.

We could restrict our selves a little more and Prohibit any Visual Media as each contain Private Images and Proprety of others Etc. This all seems to be a Big Hollywood issue to be able to even sell Hot Air and mostly a restrictive way of US citisents taking away there own creative freedom ( We Call this here building big walls arround our selves ) restricting our own posibilities.

in 2002 the creators where working hand in hand giving advices sharing there things , and now .... each is on its own but also is affecting the quality of Products Greed never was a healthy thing and does not help any Artist to be creative. 

 Would for example Poser whant to add a game engine into there application well tecnically possible and sure would be a great stepp ... but as Creator restricted the Posibilities of usage Prohibiting the usage of there Products for game engines it would not be allowed to make such an emprovement , this is another sample of how much we restrict our Posibilities and all is based on Monney making. Were not making Steps forward Rather Backward ....

so in short terms it is possible to make it but not alowed , Well in our Mind but is it really Law or just what we think it is, or what we pretend it to be for our own Purposes to ripp out others, making them beleive such

 Ragtopjohnny with hes Idea might be a great Artist with great Ideas , and what is happening here , most I read just restricts he's Creativity , with law , with you cant do it , but not many Positive Perpetives to make hes dream come true , rather restricting by loosing all the time for each little byt by asking for Permission, so hes creativity would get lost in writing Letters to avoid any issues to create hes Sculpture.

if every artist in Here would be that sencere about where they get there stuff from as   Ragtopjohnny is there would not be many Products in the store.

willyb53 is correct, Copyright is automatically granted the moment an artistic work is created. And as for the arguement that not being allowed to use other peoples work restricts an artists creativity is quite frankly well.....cobblers. A TRUE and GOOD artist will always try to be creative, infact they don't need to steal or take because they create their own ORIGINAL ideas. If there are any legal restrictions (such as fan-arts or their take on a classic image) then a decent artist will try to ensure they stay on the right side of things. So what does that say about those who reckon it's OK to take from someone purely, because it belongs to big media? To me that says they want to stake an ownership, so they can monterise it for themselves. Poser sharing sites are an example of this. They talk about "making art free", but many have paid for VIP areas! Reality is simple, if it ain't yours it aint yours. You can't just nick the bits you like and call it yours. Thats stealing end of, as various cases about sampling have shown. Also doesn't matter what media it is either. If someone paints, renders, photographs or tattoos it's academic, it belongs to that artist. Switching format doesn't change that either.

Pinky - you left the lens cap of your mind on again.

Now Look at this were already at theft... but actually the creator of this tread asked how or if it is possible to use images from the Internet !!! not stealing them .

but as soon as something might be used from another Image well then it is stolen.

you guys steal great Ideas all the even if you recreate a Jeans for the doll it was not your Invention you just stole anothers Idea.

And well Sparky you must be verry well informed about those Vip Sharing sites hoping you dont fequent em to with the excuse I'm a Undercover Agent as you would be pretty temptated to be one of those sticking arround there .

So I wonder what all this has to do with the question of  Ragtopjohnny he only well the way I understand take a picture comperable with scan and use a fragment of this onto a shirt for models , now what is Ilegal about that .

If it concerns an older user Creator well then it is another discussion I remember all these Treads about WM V4 and all these sencere creatores dicussions how to avoid on the limmit of legality and change V4 and now I'm sure you also are in Posession of a copy in your runtime.

 Ragtopjohnny  would not be a thief as long as he does not pretend that he has been the originall creator of the cutout and gives credit.

Else we could start pretending that each collage made worldwide is an Illegal Handling against Copyright. 

@ Ragtopjohnny  actually it was or is the wrong place to ask sutch a question as for most people in here have lost any commen sence of reality. since the virtuality already has materialized in there world.

@ mrsparky if you take a picture of a tatoo on an arm, who is the originall owner of that digital Item ... the one who made the Picture or the one who has the actuall tatoo ???

Photographs must actually be pretty Illegal as they are just a copy of the originall and redestributed over the whole net. just another change of format ... but strange it belongs to the one who made this Photograph. 

to quote

 

WTF?

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

Damn vampires.

Laurie

we're gonna need bigger garlic.

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

Quote - we're gonna need bigger garlic.

Who's playing that damn cello......

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

And well Sparky you must be verry well informed about those Vip Sharing sites ... Sadly I have to visit the darkside because people steal the work of the artists I sell. When I find that stolen stuff, I try to close these sites down, simple as that. mrsparky if you take a picture of a tatoo on an arm, who is the originall owner of that digital Item ... the one who made the Picture or the one who has the actuall tatoo ??? Good question, which shows how complex copyright it, and the answer is both. The tatoo artist retains the rights to the original image. The photographer retains the rights to their photo. If the artist objects the photographer can't use that photo. It's also the same with other objects. For example photos of the effiel tower at night isn't allowed here, because thats what the owners of the tower have said. But how many people have photographed that? So yes you're right copyright is incredibly complex and confusing. That said we have to respect it, we can't make up our own abartity rules to suit what we want to do.

Pinky - you left the lens cap of your mind on again.

There are several misconceptions about copyright laws:

1- The US copyright laws are not the world's copyright laws. It are valid only in the US.

2- Each country has its own copyright laws. These laws can have parts that are equal or similar to other countries or can be quite different or even do not exist. In general are very similar, but the most significative difference between the US and other countries is when the non commercial use is involved.

3- The Berne's Convention is only a convention (agreement between countries) and not the US law. This means that the parts of the copyright laws that are common to both countries can be applied from one country to another. The parts that are not common cannot be applied. For example, the Berne Convention stipulates that the duration of copyright is 50 years. In most countries it is 50 years, but the US copyright law says that is 80 years and some countries can have othe duration, smaller or greater. If some work is 30 years old there will be very little doubt and the work will be under copyright in most of the countries signatory of the convention, but if the work is 60 years old, it will be public domain and free to use in most of the countries, but still under copyright in the US.

4- Not all the countries of the world have signed the Berne's Convention. One country that have not signed can have the same copyright laws as the US, but one country cannot enforce the copyright laws in another, even in both countries is a crime. It's like the extradiction agreements.

5- ACTA was rejected by the EU until now. The aceptance of ACTA would mean that the copyright laws in the EU would be exactly the US laws and this was rejected by the European population.

6- The US has refused to sign into the ICC, so the US ins not part of the International Justice.

7- Don't forget that copyrights laws do not exist in Communist countries. China is a Communist country and in real terms is the first economy of the world or if you consider the fake stocks papers, the second economy. You can like it or not, but you must accept that today is China that sets the rules.

8- As for Renderosity as is a site in the US, so is the US copyright that must be applied there for products or anything uploded to the site. For downloads you must obbey the laws of your country. Some things can be legal in the US and illegal in other countries. For example, Poser is illegal in Saudi Arabia.

Stupidity also evolves!

Um...ur forgetting that THIS SITE is a US site. And the site is gonna follow US copyright first and foremost. And I believe the OP is in the US. I've just solved your misconception.

Laurie

Quote - Um...ur forgetting that THIS SITE is a US site. And the site is gonna follow US copyright first and foremost. And I believe the OP is in the US. I've just solved your misconception.

Laurie

Read item #8 of the list

Stupidity also evolves!

Several posts here are also not making a distinction between copyright and trademark, and the laws differ according to jurisdiction in this regard also.

The questions surrounding copyright do bring up moral and ethical considerations, and I personally am in favor of a less rigid application.

However, regardless of how you feel about the issues, it is surely in the best interest of US residents to follow US laws, unless it is their intention to use the courts to challenge such laws.

It's absolutely not a good idea for someone who wishes to sell content to disregard the laws of their jurisdication as this can get them in a heap of legal trouble.

---

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

But that's all that needed to be said kawecki. Just number 8. The rest rest don't matter for the OP.

Laurie

So f I understand that correctly , If somone sells merchendise to another cauntry the vendor sells on the terms of those ??

If a product is being sold to China Or Russia then the vendor should be avare that hes product can be taken appart and resold. As he by selling to the one in that specific caountry agrees to there terms of use. In this case the eula would only be considered Local by exporting the vendor has to agree to the other cautry's terms.

Now if this is the case Lets talk about saudi .... :-)

If the cauntry specificly Prohibits a product and the Vendor still exports the Product to them he Commmits a smuggling of Illegal product. and could be procecuted by the Cauntry as a Crimminal. so in theory if the grafic or image is being delivered to those by the vendor , then with knowledge he has commited a crime against that specific cauntry , as the law of that cauntry applies by exporting a product.

At least I understand now why this specific Darkside  mentioned by Mrsparky cant be procecuted, if the site is located in a communist cauntry then it must be legal in there inviroment to redestribute the things, as the seller by selling a product to them agreed to there terms !!

Pretty interesting .. so again .... all products sold in the Internet has to fallow the terms in witch they sell there products , same thing with farma Products , the US cant just sell a medecine to another cauntry fallowing there terms the exporter agrees with the caunty's terms by selling to those. 

"If the artist objects the photographer can't use that photo. It's also the same with other objects. For example photos of the effiel tower at night isn't allowed here, because thats what the owners of the tower have said."

* *

So*,* if you have a tattoo, you can't publish a photograph of yourself if the 'artist' objects? Not saying it isn't so, but I'd like to see how long the 'artist' would remain in business. I would also like to see the court ultimately uphold such a ruling. Similarly, I would like to see the tower folks staru suing tourists for putting their photos online.

As they say, you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich and you can get a lawyer to come up with any patently absurd clause you want. What is ultimately deemed legal or illegal boils down to money and little to do with reason or morality Whoevr has the best lawyers, the most well funded lobby, the most powerful pols in their pocket - they usually win. If you don't have large amounts of money and the willingness to spend it then just tuck your head in and go for the safest course.

 

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

Quote - But that's all that needed to be said kawecki. Just number 8. The rest rest don't matter for the OP.

Laurie

 

Actually Laury it is not only Nummber 8 as the redestributor witch exports products has to fallow the terms in witch cauntry he exports not the ones witch are valid in he's own. Accepting there terms the moment you sold the product to those.

so you have to be avare to whom you sell the product as you agree to there terms of usage as soon as you sold it to them. 

 

Quote - If a product is being sold to China Or Russia then the vendor should be avare that hes product can be taken appart and resold.

Yes, and then they sell back to you at a cheaper price, he, he.

Why do you think why Chinese products are so cheap?, because they pay nothing to the workers or use children to work ? NO !, it are cheap because they pay nothing of royalties, patents, trademarks, copyrights, don't waste money in propaganda and don't pay fortunes to their CEOs.

Quote - As he by selling to the one in that specific caountry agrees to there terms of use. In this case the eula would only be considered Local by exporting the vendor has to agree to the other cautry's terms.

This is another problem, the EULA must be written in the language of the country, documents written in foreign language have no legal value and few countries have English as its language.

Well, in internet this is imposible, you have no idea who is selling or buying and in which country he is. So only remains to hope that people will act in good faith, if not, c'est la vie.

Stupidity also evolves!

Don't forget that copyrights laws do not exist in Communist countries. They do - most countries have them - but in real terms the application of them in Russia and China tends to be variable. Normally the only time theres a showcase crack down is before big trade talks. Also don't forget Iranian and Iraq. Their "art" sites are seriously screwed up, often covered in banners attacking US lifestyle, but offering an illegal download of the lastest V4 genitial morph pack! ACTA was rejected by the EU until now. The aceptance of ACTA would mean that the copyright laws in the EU would be exactly the US laws and this was rejected by the European population. Nope. Rejected by the EU government not the people :) IPoser is illegal in Saudi Arabia. Really? Thats interesting. Where did you read that?

Pinky - you left the lens cap of your mind on again.

Quote - ACTA was rejected by the EU until now. The aceptance of ACTA would mean that the copyright laws in the EU would be exactly the US laws and this was rejected by the European population.

Nope. Rejected by the EU government not the people :)

Wrong!!!, Were just the people with their mass protests and mobilizations  in many countries that forced their goverments to shelf ACTA, corrupted greedy politicians wanted it, but population does not.

Stupidity also evolves!

Quote - ACTA was rejected by the EU until now. The aceptance of ACTA would mean that the copyright laws in the EU would be exactly the US laws and this was rejected by the European population.

Nope. Rejected by the EU government not the people :)

Actually the EU still is Democratic so the Folk decide as the govenment fallows them , People are govenment, compaired to the US in witch the People do as the Govenment say's. ( Sheep Folk ) 

A good example is the ACTA issue witch almost caused a Civil war in the US. and government beating the crap out of innocent civillians just because they stud for there own thoughts.

 

Quote - IPoser is illegal in Saudi Arabia.
Really? Thats interesting. Where did you read that?

  this is common Logic ... as those from the mentioned caunties can not get the merchandise in a legal way , and it would be a crime to sell a product onto a cauntry witch prohibits the usage Stores in most cases do not offer a product sale to those.

the people there also to protect them selves form a govenment check on there spendings are forced to go to the Dark side to get the whanted merchandise.

but this actually concerns the trading contracts between caunties.

each product has to be adapted to the cautries Law in witch it has been exported and there is no exuse of unknoweledge ( Export Laws)

Now if for example Kidds4 would be declared as a Pedophile Product throughout different cauntries in Europ DAZ would comit a Crime providing this figure to those Cautries. ( Ignorance is Bliss .. but not an excuse )

As for V4 WM how many people who whanted this to get true figured a way of Borrowing this from the Copyrightholder without hes full permission and it has been sucessfully done without allot of concequences. If it concerns a personal Product by the copyrightholder he mostly Barks out Loud but only to represent hes own thought of right.

Another example : One produces an Iron GYM puts it out on the Market on a 100$ as soon as he makes allot of sales others will fallow by copiing the Idea and they are allowed to do as sutch the form will varrie a little and especially the name or Brand , witch is the actuall copyright so those cant use the Name Iron Gym but will name the Product Pullup Gym and sell the Product to a lower Price.

Now the consumer , he will see the flood of the cheeper copy but still think well the originall might be better quality. if affordable still by the originall Product.

the Inventor does not bother about the Issue as they do not stand still fixing them selves on an old Idea rather use there energy for there next revolutionary Idea.

If ,as a sample, a great creator Like Aery Soul , and later on somone pops up  and makes the same style copying the idea people will still whant the Aery Soul Product as they are the Originall. or Steam Punk how manny Vendors fallowes the Idea as they smelled Big Monney. But who is the actuall copyrightholder of the Brand " Steam Punk " ???

 

Quote - > Quote - But that's all that needed to be said kawecki. Just number 8. The rest rest don't matter for the OP.

Laurie

 

Actually Laury it is not only Nummber 8 as the redestributor witch exports products has to fallow the terms in witch cauntry he exports not the ones witch are valid in he's own. Accepting there terms the moment you sold the product to those.

so you have to be avare to whom you sell the product as you agree to there terms of usage as soon as you sold it to them. 

 

You know, I would think with a site like this (based in the US, compelled to follow US law) that if you are in another country you are bound by your own county's laws and that is on YOU. This site can't likely follow every law of every country on these matters...that would be ridiculous. It's then on the purchaser to know what or what not they can do with it. All this site can tell you is what you can't do with it in the US.

Laurie

@ Laurie ,

I sure inderstand the Fact , But why does then the one who sets up the rooles not fallow them them selve, by breaking there own rooles of termes , well there would be a simple answer for this.

There are just to many Rooles witch actually affect the creativity or ability to produce new stuff, all what those rooles say combining one article with another means , you can not do anything anymore without braking a Law , So we All are sort of Law breakers. cheating on our own Terms.

a simple concept of Power to be able to controll the mass. as I said before in your cauntry it would be against the law to use a brand , a signature of any kind  and to make any profit out of it " Steam Punk " would in this case be recognized as a Brand in witch those who pretend how severe copiright might be broke it them selves by abusing the opportunity gaining some monney out of it ( And no Credit has ever been given to the originall Brand Holder ) . we could see in here that every day there is approval of breaking our own rooles, so why prohipit something to one and allow it to another ??

I can't change the laws gate..lol. And neither can Renderosity. It's out of their hands. And I don't think anyone is trying to control the masses . Renderosity puts stuff they see fit in their store. If they believe something isn't going to be a copyright violation, they put it in the store. Sometimes they're wrong and they get bitten. Sometimes it's the vendor that's wrong. They do their best to make sure stuff like that doesn't happen and they actually do have people that know copyright laws. Even then stuff slips thru. It's a fallible system because it's run by humans...lol

 

Laurie

Steampunk is a genre - there is no copyright involved. It was mentioned first as the opposite of cyberpunk. Numerous books, films and fashion items have been made in this genre - even before the term was used

 

 

@ wimvdb

actually I just used Steam Punk as a simple sample , there are other samples witch could be recognized as copyright infrigement but noo need to mention as I also enjoy the beauty of the Graphics in here, even if i'd be slightly on the limmit of copyright.

@ All, as it seems we are all in agreement so @ Ragtopjohnny I would just use the tatoofragments you wish to use ( Best use Black and white and paint them :-)  .... witch I assume it already has been done Example shana Inked Vol1-8 in withch there is also no statement where the originall tatoo's came from and some seem to be verry popular common tattoo's.

there are also tatoocollection to be bought througout the Internet as reference for ones you wish to have on your skin, many are also Provided for free. Legal Usage ,there are also cheep Tatoomagazines witch provide also references to be used as soutch.

so no matter if you use this tatoo on a dool skinn on a t-shirt or on your skin they are free to be used. they are made for this Purpose, and not under Rendo or Daz Grafic  eula's

Mostly the references are Provided in Black and white some colored so that the user can color then on he's own taste.

to compair to a child's paintbook with BW references to be colored :-) 

Ugh. Whatever. Simple...US site, US laws. Period. No using anyone elses artwork without specific premission period.

Bye.

Laurie

Quote - Ugh. Whatever. Simple...US site, US laws. Period. No using anyone elses artwork without specific premission period.
Bye. Laurie

Well I guess everyone understud that :

Translation of  Simple...US site, US laws. ---->> No Matter how you might do it be aware that it could be used against you and be procecuted by Law ( Police State ) as everything can be Pretended as  Illegal act depending on the interpretation of  facts.

See ---->> Rhetoric

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric 

 

 

Wrong!!!, Were just the people with their mass protests and mobilizations in many countries Maybe in Libya and Egypt, but not in europe. All the occupy protest achieved there was a big flat nothing. The rest of us just carried on trying to survive like normal, and for some of us copyright issues - the point of this debate - are a big part of that. Copyright helps protects the stuff content creators make, which in turn means they get an income. Equally do I think current copyright laws are often wrong and need changing to reflect the digital age? Yep.Plus do I think sites get it wrong sometimes? Yep all the time and there are loads of grey areas. BTW - as it seems we are all in agreement so @ Ragtopjohnny I would just use the tatoofragments you wish to use No we ain't. If you want to tell people it's OK to be a thief, it's your right to have that opinion. But would you promise us that if we used stolen work you'd cover us? You'd pay any fees or damages? PS = well said Laurie.

Pinky - you left the lens cap of your mind on again.

Quote - > Quote - Ugh. Whatever. Simple...US site, US laws. Period. No using anyone elses artwork without specific premission period.

Bye. Laurie

Well I guess everyone understud that :

Translation of  Simple...US site, US laws. ---->> No Matter how you might do it be aware that it could be used against you and be procecuted by Law ( Police State ) as everything can be Pretended as  Illegal act depending on the interpretation of  facts.

See ---->> Rhetoric

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric 

 

 

 

OFFSIDE! Ref! that's politics! I call foul under Forum Policies! plus man.. use a spellchecker... (in Firefox, right click, spell check.)

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

Quote - No we ain't. If you want to tell people it's OK to be a thief, it's your right to have that opinion. But would you promise us that if we used stolen work you'd cover us? You'd pay any fees or damages?

 PS = well said Laurie.

To avoid any missunderstandings what I wrote was not supporting any Piracy or any theft , rather to prevent it and also to make it understandable the use of references Like the ones for Tatoos

I do not know where you are have been  hanging arround to get the impression of theft but were not on the Dark side here.  assuming that "inked" was made based on References for Tatoo's why the heck could another one not do the same , just because Ragtopjohnny is sencere by asking ( And getting missleaded anwers ) and the other one never has to mention the facts ??

Or is it because there is a little good complex on those who are the Older creatores preventing newbies to get a chance for there creations?

 

 

Home 5, Visitors 0

Laurie

Quote - OFFSIDE! Ref! that's politics! I call foul under Forum Policies! plus man.. use a spellchecker... (in Firefox, right click, spell check.)

  OFFSIDE theme

this is exactly what I mean , do you think because you spell better in your Mother Language that your IQ might be higher? well no rather a primitive answer of somone who cannot argue pretending he might know better , but I assume you could read what I wrote even that it contains some spelling mistakes :-)

and sure would not be a reason to be able to scare off any arguments

we are no rasits are we , what will be next ... the Avatar that Ragtopjohnny used he might of made more impression by using an Avatar from the Rock to get a little more respect from you guy's ( And may even of gotten a Positive approval for he's dream )

 

 

I don't think he was talking about spelling mistakes. The TOS is against political discussion. This isn't - it's copyright law. US copyright law. Starting to offer "opinions" on what is totalitarian or what's not is really straying toward political. That's what he meant.

btw, are you kawecki? ;)

Laurie

Helllooo wake up .... I am GATE and alway's was and no I'm not charl's bronson or Jack Nikolson, well rather a resemblance with Bill Gates Let me check the Mirror ...............

and again to clear your little confusion I never used the word Political that was MagnusGreel witch whent into the Wiki Page but as for there is allot to read hes brain could only register the line of the 20th century where the word Political was mentioned

 the phylosophical of the page was not unhderstandable. and phylosophy has actually nothing to do with polotex.

and who is actually trying to misslead the actual theme ... not me we are still debating if it is Possible to use a Tatoo reference for a Texturing !!!! 

To avoid any missunderstandings what I wrote was not supporting any Piracy or any theft Good to read. I do not know where you are have been hanging arround to get the impression of theft The part where I watch my friends, fellow artists and customers get screwed by sharers and theives on a regular basis. Which after 12 years gets incredibly tiring. Especially when others try to justify that. iOr is it because there is a little good complex on those who are the Older creatores preventing newbies to get a chance for there creations? Never. Newbies are vital in bringing new ideas and concepts into poserdom. So helping them also helps inspire us oldies. You can also post a complex question here and get an accurate answer in seconds. Often from the very people who wrote that for the core software and content. Plus just because someone is a newbie in one area, doesn't mean they are in another. Everyone has skills to bring. Indeed it's that shared knowledge that one's of this community biggest strengths. OK, its a community that doesn't always agree :) but good debate can be a healthly thing.

Pinky - you left the lens cap of your mind on again.

I guess that Ragtopjohnny would get the best advices contacting a Vendor Like " Shana " who seems to have allot of texturing experiences and Legal Knowelage using Tatoo References on Clothings and skin as allot of her Products refere to that.( Might be worth a try ) and more then to Read our Debatings as Newbies on this theme.

@ LaurieA

thinking that I might be another Person  would give me the impression that you reflect what you actually are doing, thinking that I might do the same, but wrong! as we are Individuals and there is no coperable characteristics between us.

I guess that Ragtopjohnny would get the best advices... Yep it can he helpful to ask those with experience, though don't automatically rule out whats said on these boards. Theres a lot of good people here, with some expert knowledge and skills, who are willing to spend their time helping others. ..and more then to Read our Debatings as Newbies on this theme. Think your're speaking for yourself there not anyone else:) LOL.

Pinky - you left the lens cap of your mind on again.

Sorry gate...a lot of us have been around the block a few times. Watch vendor after vendor's product blow up because they cheated and used someone elses work without permission. I've been here at RO since it wasn't even RO but Poser Forum Online. I've seen just about everything as have a lot of us, including Mr. Sparky. Ask an old timer about Mendhi, Renda, ByteMeOk, as well as many others.

Laurie

Well I'd just like to know how many of the members who have responded here are copyrite attorneys?  On what authority or fact are the answers based upon?  I'd love to see some text or links directing the OP to these rules.  Far as I can tell, the only person making any "reasonable" sense is Gate.  Granted his spelling sux (yes I spelled "sux" wrong... I did it on purpose), but you can OBVIOUSLY tell that English is not his primary langauge.  So rather than make his spelling an issue, just stay focussed on the question at hand.  If a person isn't able to use their brain to debate or, at the very least, display a small measure of tolerance, then they ought to just keep their mouth shut.    

The advice that Ragtopjohnny got from the Art Room Tattoo Galary appears to be sound.  However, to be safe, he could contact the copyrite holder and request permission to use their designs for commercial digital models, get it in writing and provide that to Renderosity for them to "keep on file," just as ShanaC does.

Seems some of the answers to this simple question were made much more complicated than was necessary.

Vive Bene.  Spesso L'Amore.  Di Risata Molto.
Live Well.  Love Often.  Laugh Much.

That's all we were TRYING to tell him. Don't use without permission. Make sure you're asking the original creator of the artwork you want to use. Get it in writing. That's it.

Laurie

Well if you post such a question on a publicy accessible forum do you expect only lawyers to answer? Of course not. You're also going to get different answers from a global persceptive based on different experiences and people will freely debate it. Which is whats happening here and theres nothing wrong with good fair debate. As for the advice that's gonna be given. If it's obviously wrong - like the tat guys - then other artists will want to warn the OP. Purely because they don't want the OP to get into any trouble. So yes you're right anyone doing this should get permission from the IP or copyright holder.

Pinky - you left the lens cap of your mind on again.

I'm going to find a wall I can bang my head against. :)

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

Nah ...just keep on ......

Pinky - you left the lens cap of your mind on again.

Quote - I'm going to find a wall I can bang my head against. :)

Bang it a few times for me ;).

Laurie

Gate, under US law, you cannot copyright ideas.

Intellectual property can be protected under patents, trademarks, and copyrights. None of these protects pure ideas.  The laws governing each are somewhat different, as are the laws governing publicity rights, use of one's image (photograph of a person, for example), defamation, and privacy.

I would quote you to show you where you are conflating these things, but I find your writing, while articulate and sensible, also hard to read, and I do wish you would consider using a spellchecker because it would make communicating your point much easier.

I also think that while it is one thing to discuss the ethical merits of a position, it is another to give someone bad legal advice.  I do not think any of us should feel good about giving Ragtopjohnny advice that might result in action being brought against him.

But in the end, when it comes to legal advice, it's worth every penny you paid for it.

---

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

Another approach hat is very common in real life:

You must obey and follow the law, the US law tells that you cannot take the work of other person, if you do you will be punished.

Fine, I shall follow the law and take the work of many people and obtain a huge profit with its use. Following the law the offended parts will sue me at a Justice court. With whom does not I shall get an extra profit and who does it then will be lawyers, discussions, more lawyers, appealtions and can take many years to reach the final veredict. I can win or lose the cause. If I win the cause I get an extra profit. If I lose, then I have to stop using the works, no problem, the product is already obsolette. Also I have to pay, also no problem, what I have to pay in lost causes already is a part of the product's cost. I am only following the law and obeying the decisions of Justice.

Microsoft won and lost hundreds or thousands of causes. Do you think that was Billy Gates that payed the lost causes? Nooo!, it was you that payed it every time you purchased Windows. The bailouts that the banks have received, a significative part of the money was used to pay the lost cause. Again, it were  taxpayers and not the banks that payed the lost causes.

Don't blame the lawyers, they don't twist, change or invent the Laws, they only brownse among the tons and more tons of existent laws to find the most appropiate for the case. But judges have some power to interpret the law, but they can be bribed and can be good friends or political allies.

 

Well, I suppose that nobody will make a fortune with a Vicky5 skin tatoo, so forget all above.

Stupidity also evolves!

Quote -
Well, I suppose that nobody will make a fortune with a Vicky5 skin tatoo, so forget all above.

Exactly.

Using the courts to challenge a law is a tradition, and a respectable tactic.  Including the cost of legal action in the cost of production is reasonable from a business standpoint, but immoral in my opinion when it comes to matters of health and safety, as when pharmaceutical companies continue to sell dangerous drugs with the knowledge that their profits will still probably exceed their losses even if they lose a very large class action lawsuit.

Aggressive businesses have been known to infringe unregistered works, knowing perfectly well that their legal budget will permit them to bully an individual into giving up because that person cannot sue for statutory damages or legal costs -- which is why, even though copyright registration is not theoretically or legally required, in practical application, if you want to be able to sue, you will almost certainly need it.

In short, if it will break your heart to see your stuff infringed, register it and retain a lawyer.

---

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

Quote - Well if you post such a question on a publicy accessible forum do you expect only lawyers to answer? Of course not. Good point, agreed.  It's just reading through all the responses gave me the impression that everyone was an authority without pointing the OP to the rules. 

You're also going to get different answers from a global persceptive based on different experiences and people will freely debate it. Which is whats happening here and theres nothing wrong with good fair debate. As for the advice that's gonna be given.

I completely agree with you. 

If it's obviously wrong - like the tat guys - then other artists will want to warn the OP. Purely because they don't want the OP to get into any trouble. So yes you're right anyone doing this should get permission from the IP or copyright holder.

I'm not sure the tat guy is completely wrong, but unless I knew for sure, I would definitely get it in writing, for my own peace of mind. 

Vive Bene.  Spesso L'Amore.  Di Risata Molto.
Live Well.  Love Often.  Laugh Much.

Quote - I'm not sure the tat guy is completely wrong, but unless I knew for sure, I would definitely get it in writing, for my own peace of mind. 

Whether he's completely wrong depends on the question that was posed to him.

"Will I get in trouble if I use art I downloaded from the web?" -- Very likely not -- agree with tat guy.

"Can I use copyrighted works in my products sold on Renderosity without getting permission from copyright holders?" -- Absolutely not -- disagree with tat guy. Tat guy probably doesn't know what Renderosity is or anything about its policies.

"Will I get sued if I infringe on someone else's copyright in commericial works?" -- Will my house in California suffer earthquake damage? Who the hell knows?  The question is how much risk you are willing and able to assume.

"If I take an image off the web and ink it on someone's arm, am I likely to get in trouble?" -- Probably not, but every reputable tattoo artist I have visited pays for subscriptions to tattoo flash sites, and I AM NOT going to allow anyone who disrespects copyright law to stick needles in my skin because I am going to wonder what other laws and regulations do they think they can just disregard?

---

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

Good comment there moriador - what you're talking about is the context of useage and that does change things for the OP's question. While in all your examples the act of taking is legally wrong, it's what's likely to happen that'll vary. For the former, certainly nothing at all. For the latter where design theft is a big issue, I wouldn't steal from someone who sticks needles in people for a living :) For the issue of selling content it's not just about store polices either, another biggie is how an artists work is gonna be percived. It raises Q's such as would you buy from an artist if you thought their stuff was likely to be iffy? If so could you respect their work? Or trust that artist? Obviously with the OP you can trust him as he knows the score now. Though yea Jazzmin I wouldn't take the word of some random tat guy on the web either, I'd go see a lawyer.

Pinky - you left the lens cap of your mind on again.

Attached Link: http://forum.deviantart.com/art/general/1747964/

I spoke a bit too soon about tattoo subscription sites.

Even if you pay for a subscription at what looks like a reputable site, you might still be using material that was infringed.  I suppose your liability would be limited in that case, and the site itself would take the heat (if any).

I guess you have to do your homework there and email the site you're thinking of subscribing to, ask them about their removal policy, and see how long it takes for them to respond to you.

---

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

 A Side Question ....

The Past Day's I whent through Hundred's of collected things, From different Artist's , I Figured that most Products sold where unfinished full of mistakes , Path Mistakes Missing Textures Axis on the Wrong Place for rotation Rigging has to be fixed Morphs Named wrong not being recognized, allot of Products with Missing IK Chains , Products created Between 2002 - 2005 where having less issues but the ones from the Past year where Full of them  1 of 20 where ok 19 need fixes ,

Now How would that be .... If somond desides to Sell Fixes for these Incompleate Products or Improvements , How would that be , the One sells right after buying a New Product a fix or an addon witch has more Possibilities based for example on a CR2 but does not Redestribute the OBJ exept the OBJ would have to be also Fixed and would code the Product that could only be opend owning the Originall, well a sample how all the creators in here Already do to Improve V4.

The one who makes the fix would automaticly get Copyright on he's fix ... Right? 

The Originall Creator would be Blocked to make the same Fix him self on he's own Product ... I assume !!!

I realized this the Past days well the Quality loss in the Past Year witch made me think ... are the Creator only selling Dreams With there promos but actually not a quality Product ??

So actually it would be aproffitable for the Consumer to have the possibility having a  Let's call it a Dream Fixer for Unfinished sold Products.

As a simple sample , take a Robo Figure witch has no IK Chain then Add the IK Chain to the Figure and sell the CR2 In the store as an addon Or Figure Improvement the The originall creator could not add the IK Chains on Hes originall Product as an Improvement as for the one who made the Update was first !!

Or redestribute Fixed Files of wrong Path's in Cr2 Or Poses without adding the OBJ's in the Package or Texture files the one who redestributes the fix has the copyright on it . 

 I assume this is correct or tell me better if I am Wrong. 

it would be wrong - a derivative product.  the person attempting to sell it could try the transformative defence, as they do with photomanips, but most of these big poser-related stores would either refuse to sell it or they would yank it after due legal process.  I ain't a lawyer.

Like Nancy said, thats whats called a Derivative Work. Very long complex copyright issue there. Wikipedia explains it well. Though I'm more interested in your comments that content creators are making poor quality products and that you can fix them up. So I'm offering you a fun and friendly challenge here.. http://www.poserdirect.com/freebies/zimbeta.zip http://www.poserdirect.com/freebies/new_gir.zip The above files contain the kinda uncompleted thing you mention. 2 fan art freebies, plain unrigged OBJ's. Orginally made in response to a request at Daz, but sadly Wendy never had time to finish them off. So reckon you can rig these two perfectly for Poser? There'll be no financial reward, but you would make a lot of poser people very happy!

Pinky - you left the lens cap of your mind on again.

Quote - The Originall Creator would be Blocked to make the same Fix him self on he's own Product ... I assume !!!

No.  Someone please correct me if I am mistaken anywhere in the following.... Laws are not the same everywhere. I'm not an expert in US law.  But this is how I understand it:

The original creator could fix his product however he wanted as long as he didn't use the same exact fix (or parts of that fix) that someone else made.

You cannot copyright, or patent the IDEA of a fix, only its exact implementation or expresssion.  And that implementation or expression must involve some degree of creativity.

Two people are not going to arrive at an identical "fix" or morph or figure or texture independently (without one of them copying from the other) unless their creation is very simple.  As long as their creations are different and did not involve copying from each other, they are both perfectly free to create them, use them, or sell them.

For example, I make a red "texture set" for a dress by making the diffuse color red. Now no one can use this extremely simple method for making materials red? Of course not.  It's too simple. It's not a creation.  There must be something creative in what I do before I can copyright it.

I have this story about a pirate called Jack and his rivalry with another pirate who has an evil monkey and a magical compass.  I know, I'll copyright it!! I'll also copyright this clever concept I came up with for preventing injury when slicing bagels.  And finally, I'll copyright my name.  No one will be able to write a book or have a character in a movie called "Amber Fisher" because I'm going to take that name.

No. It does not work like that.

With a tangible working design drawn in paper or 3d that is detailed enough that someone could create a functional version of the item pictured, I might patent my bagel slicer. 

I might be able to trademark "Amber Fisher", though I'll be severely limited, and my trademark will probably only protect me against others who use that name in the same industry, in the same geographical area, for products or services that could be mistaken for my own. 

Finally, if I'm Disney, I might manage to trademark the special appearance of the pirate characters as they will appear in my movies, and I can copyright the movies and the movie scripts themselves, but in all likelihood the basic story will continue to belong to humanity.

ETA: So yes. The first person to come up with a reasonably complex solution gets to own it -- if they patent it.  It's how we reward crazy inventors when they create something good after years of making useless junk.  I could patent my bagel slicer.  But that wouldn't stop anyone from making a hundred different kinds of bagel slicers, just as long as none of them were THE SAME as mine.

---

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

Quote - it would be wrong - a derivative product.  the person attempting to sell it could try the transformative defence, as they do with photomanips, but most of these big poser-related stores would either refuse to sell it or they would yank it after due legal process.  I ain't a lawyer.

What MissNancy said.

Laurie

Well selling a Unfinished Product Is also wrong or Providing a Product to be used to Improve your creations that cant be Improved further Is also wrong , Improving V4 Is also Wrong , Especially Writing rooles for own Benefits is terribly Wrong.

I Take a sample . I buy a Static Building , But Ooohh The door does not open, but that door should open as it is needed for my clip , ain't it soo tha the Product is sold to be used in clips ? But it does not work , so why not being able to sell that Imprvement to the Building ? you also sell Clothings with Bones from V4 Or Modefied Morphs that already have ben sold Jus Mixed and modefied Saved as a OBJ Morph and added as your costum morph on a new doll!!

Or IK Chains that are Missing A must have for any Figure with Legs especially if it would be a Spider But they are missing , so why could it not be fixed and sold as an addon to emprove that missing feature ?? you do this all the Time with other figures especially with V4.

I rather think that the the issue would be that a costumer would recognize that the sold Product was not what they expected it to be, or is it on the Costumer to fix it them self for he's own use witch would again be against the roole.

Another sample You Buy one of those Newer Space Crafts from Simon Mostly static But you need Movements for your anmations so why not being able to make packages witch Improve the feature of new Morphs New movements as a Improved CR2 Without redestributing the textures or Obj's ( And actually this metod has been used for years on the Victoria series for diverse Dolls  on redestributing the CR2 with integrated Morphs. ) I can also see that many morphs for example Pucker Lips on dolls have been used many times in the Past as Costum morph but reley on already sold Packages just a combination of morph's saved as a new costum morph and sold as its own ! and for sure not made in a third-party programm or by using Paint Morph. .

Yanno, we were really not discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of any product in the MP. Only what you can and can't use in it.

Laurie

As I Said .. Was only a side Question to be able to understand those confusing rooles , about one that can another one not and on what the rooles are actually Based :-)

Why don't you create a new thread?

Laurie

Theres nothing confusing about it. If you buy something and it's not precisely what you want, then modding it for yourself is fine. But if you wanna profit from it, either finacially or "creatively", it's what moriador said about Derivative Works.

Pinky - you left the lens cap of your mind on again.

Quote - The one who makes the fix would automaticly get Copyright on he's fix ... Right?

Ha, ha, ha. Many years ago I found the most ridiculous thing that I've seen. I was working analyzing patents to see if some have any use for the company and I found one. This patent was nothing more that a patent fixing the crap of other patent!! So if you want to use this patent for your product you must pay for two patents. You pay for the first patent to make your product, but this product will not work, so you must pay another patent to make your product work. I put in my report "Ridiculous"

Stupidity also evolves!

Quote - I Take a sample . I buy a Static Building , But Ooohh The door does not open, but that door should open as it is needed for my clip , ain't it soo tha the Product is sold to be used in clips ? But it does not work , so why not being able to sell that Imprvement to the Building ?

Is not so simple. You build a room for a scenario and you can put many doors and windows. The doors and windows are not doors of windows, it are only a plane with a door or window texture and there are plenty of beautil textures of doors and windows, so the rendering of the scene will be something excellent. The second point is that the walls are only planes, so if the set the backcull option in the rendering settings, the walls will not obstruct the camera. In the end you have a room that a low polygon number, render fast and produce excellent scenes.

But the doors are fake doors that never open. If you want a door to open the situation gets rather complicated. The door cannot be a simple pece of plane with a proyected texture, it must have 3d, The door itself is not a big problem, you can use a cube instead of a plane and continue to use the same texture. The problem is that the door needs a frame that cannot be a plane and so the walls that once were a plane, now have 3d. The problem doesn't end here. If you open the door there is nothing on the other side. The floor abruply ends at the door and with a void after the door. You need to extend the floor of your room to the other side of the door with a same texture or other compatible with the first. You solved the floor problem, but what you see on the other side is a void, you must put something there. What do you put at the other side of the door? another room with walls? a garden ? a street ?

In the end, you will have to build a complex building divided into props or figure actors that can be hidden/unhidden, a big polygon count and very much expensive product. There is no possible update for the first simple product to make the door open. If you want a moving door, buy a more complicated product or divide the animation into parts where each part uses simple products and then join the parts editing the trasition between the scenarios

Stupidity also evolves!

Most static Buildings are made in High end Programms , some things we see even have been ripped out of Games. But verry difficult to prove as it is mostly only a fragment of those. The OBJ actually is importet into Poser  and reasamled as one static Prop the information of doorframes Doors windows are actually still here , just that the creator instead of importing the OBJ subdivided and reasembled in Poser he merged them into one , It can actually be taken appart in the Material room of poser by saving the materials as Props. And would not be a distingtive work just a Update as Long as the originall product is required to be able to use the Update. It is actually the Major Part of Poser to do so most Products are So called Distinctive works. In the store there is one addon after the other to find one update after an other Just like working as a team On a huuge Project. Restricting these Posibilities would most Likely cause that new great Creators could not integrate ino such a community. We stand still .

It Probably also would Prevent,  Like mentioned by MrSparky Fighting the dark side , rather pushing ( Motivating )the  People to create  then to steal by showing more felibility. and hes just released Product on Content Paradise would of not shown up on a search  right after its release. ( Just a side Joke )

We are Talking here about Legal issues but they result rather into Restriction then to be Productive for an Artist community.( Cant use this Cant Use that ) One allone could of never made Poser the way it is today it has been build hand in hand by many People with many great ideas , and now it seems more and more restricting compairing to the flexibility shown almost a decade ago.

The day every Idea will have been brought out, there will be nothing left to create, rather then to steal other Ideas and resulting, caused by own limitations that people start pointing fingers at each other . 

every healthy management thinks in Decades but not just only in the Present. 

You know, Renderosity did not make the US laws and of course the thing to do if you don't LIKE US law is to sell within your country of origin or in other countries where you know the laws are very lax on other peoples intellectual property. In essence, don't bitch about not being able to sell here - this place HAS to follow US law whether they like it or not. And THAT my friends is a fact, whether YOU like it or not. Your options? See above and don't sell in the US. It's really very simple. Your long whining posts are going to change absolutely nothing, so I suggest you use that energy for your own benefit and start creating things for your own countries and not sell here, where the laws protect the things people make, even YOUR stuff.

Laurie

Quote - The day every Idea will have been brought out, there will be nothing left to create, rather then to steal other Ideas and resulting, caused by own limitations that people start pointing fingers at each other .

Once again, I don't know how it is in your country, but in the US and Canada, you can't own the rights to an IDEA, and as a result, while you can plagiarize an idea (and lose your reputation), you can't steal one because they aren't legally owned.

And they aren't legally owned for exactly the reasons you point out because everyone, even the lawyers who help draft the legislation, knows how utterly absurd it would become.

---

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

 

you Know Laurie , I really Like your Attitude , and for us there is no need to Have a shop in Renderosity as Our work is a little more advanced then to sell Virtual Dreams and Uptates based on one  existing Products  ,  our work is rather to Push Economy than to Block it. It is rather Using ideas and sharing them In sociaty giving the next generation Posibilities to build up something.

If you would be capable of reading and understanding this thread witch does nothing else then to figure out solutions for others to be able to take part in an artistic way. Not only restricting those. 

The mentality ( Whether you Like the Us and accept it fallow there Rooles or just keep out ) is not  verry Productive  for International merchandise tradings. 

 

Gate, your country is in all likelihood a signatory to the Berne Convention, and therefore I doubt that the laws there are really all that different.

If anything it may be easier in your country to sue for damages when your IP is copied, as the US almost did not sign the agreement because it did not want to eliminate the requirement for copyright registration.  As it stands, in the US, you need to register a work before you can sue.  This is not the case in all Berne Convention countries.

So before you criticize the other contestants, please make sure that your own horse can finish the race.

---

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

Quote -  

you Know Laurie , I really Like your Attitude , and for us there is no need to Have a shop in Renderosity as Our work is a little more advanced then to sell Virtual Dreams and Uptates based on one  existing Products  ,  our work is rather to Push Economy than to Block it. It is rather Using ideas and sharing them In sociaty giving the next generation Posibilities to build up something.

If you would be capable of reading and understanding this thread witch does nothing else then to figure out solutions for others to be able to take part in an artistic way. Not only restricting those. 

The mentality ( Whether you Like the Us and accept it fallow there Rooles or just keep out ) is not  verry Productive  for International merchandise tradings. 

 

 

Perhaps it's the language barrier then. It doesn't sound like you are trying to come up with anything but to rant on about why we can't use other's things, staunch creativity, etc. I haven't really seen you come up with anything. What is it I'm supposed to be seeing? And if you aren't talking about the original question of the thread what are you talking about? If you wanna talk about something else, fine. MAKE A NEW THREAD. There are people that search these forums for the question that was originally asked.

Laurie

"As it stands, in the US, you need to register a work before you can sue."

My understanding is a little different.  You can sue in either case, it is what you can sue for that is different.

If it is registered, you can sue for damages.  If it is not registered, you can only sue to stop distribution/publication/sales of existing copies, but no monitary damages.

Again, complicated law, so I may be wrong on that one.

 

Bill

 

People that know everything by definition can not learn anything

This Discussion is not only based on am I allowed to do or not , I see it rather like this, are there alternatives ( More flexipilities ) rather then always pointing fingers saying it is a destingtive work or it is a Pic that already has been seen somwhere but still differs from one another.

If the Law As you said repeating what I said earlier. ""As it stands, in the US, you need to register a work before you can sue. "" then how many have been registred ?

If somone Like in the store creates a Doll using Combined morphs from other pakages creating hes own Distingtive Costum Morph with exeption of ones Provided By Daz, why is that allowed ? ( Is it cos it cant be proven ? ) but used in a daily base.

and it is not the govenment or a Berne convention who makes the Law , we are the ones who restrict our selves we make the laws a eula just repeats what we decide . if we recognize that there would be the need for more flexibility we just change them for our own benefits. so it is on the Artists to decide whether it is possible or not .

Would I whant to make a Product more attractive I would write .

Small Sample: Do not redestribute the product in its originall state , you may modefie the product at own will and redestribute as long it does not match the originall ! 

so to say make it more plesant for a costumer to use by showing flexibilitie. we are in a economic circle that has allot of issues so why not try to find ideas to fix them starting with little things.  

Quote - "As it stands, in the US, you need to register a work before you can sue."

My understanding is a little different.  You can sue in either case, it is what you can sue for that is different.

If it is registered, you can sue for damages.  If it is not registered, you can only sue to stop distribution/publication/sales of existing copies, but no monitary damages.

Again, complicated law, so I may be wrong on that one.

 

Bill

 

Well, theoretically you can sue (for actual loss of profits -- which would be very hard to prove) without registering, but the courts have ruled that before you can bring a lawsuit into federal court (and that's the only court that has jurisdiction), you must register your work.  It's a procedural requirement.

Now, you can register after you've noticed the infringement, but you must do so within 3 months of the first date of publication, or when the infringement occurred (or maybe when you noticed it -- I'm not sure).  Given that it often takes 6 months to complete an application unless you pay $600+ to fast track it (and apparently that may still be cutting it very close), it's almost as though you have no actual protection without registering.

I think that if you don't register before you notice infringement, you lose one of the other main benefits of registering, and that is that it provides prima facie evidence of your ownership of the copyright.

I'm imagining someone stealing someone's unregistered work and registering it under their own name and then suing the actual creator for infringement.  It would not surprise me to find that it had happened.

ETA: There is a reason I don't have a gallery here.  It could conceivably be considered "publication" and that makes registering a whole bunch of images all together a real PITA.  Once I've registered them, I'll feel okay about posting.

---

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

Correct. You can sue for infringement even if you don't have it registered/copyrighted/whatever. It's just that your burden of proof is higher than it would be had you done it previous to the infraction.

Laurie

Attached Link: http://www.wsgr.com/WSGR/Display.aspx?SectionName=publications/PDFSearch/wsgralert_copyright_registration.htm

> Quote - Correct. You can sue for infringement even if you don't have it registered/copyrighted/whatever. It's just that your burden of proof is higher than it would be had you done it previous to the infraction. > > Laurie

From the link above:

"Section 411(a) [of the The Copyright Act] provides, with a few exceptions, that "no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title."

In Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, No. 08-103, 559 U.S. ___ (2010) the Supreme Court ruled on the issue...

"It should be noted that while the Court confirmed that Section 411(a)'s registration requirement is a precondition to filing a claim, the Court expressly declined to clarify what kind of precondition to the suit it is—namely, whether it is a mandatory precondition. Hence, it remains to be determined whether district courts may or should enforce the registration requirement sua sponte by dismissing copyright infringement claims involving unregistered works. It also remains to be seen how the Second Circuit will address the matter upon remand in the class action context."

---

TL;DR ---> You need to register as a precondition to filing a claim, but that could change with future rulings.

Oh, and this requirement does not hold, I believe, for international works when the infringement occurs in the US.  It seems that I would find it easier to sue an American infringer than an someone whose work was created in the US would.

---

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

Quote - and it is not the govenment or a Berne convention who makes the Law , we are the ones who restrict our selves we make the laws a eula just repeats what we decide . if we recognize that there would be the need for more flexibility we just change them for our own benefits. so it is on the Artists to decide whether it is possible or not .

I live a block from the courthouse, and I guarantee that it is not run by a bunch of artists making up their own rules.

Creators DO have the ability to decide the rules about how their own work will be used. I agree totally.  I render stock images and make stock photos available, and I offer them exactly as you suggest.  I'm also a big fan of Creative Commons music, and I prefer a lot of it to what is offered by traditional recording studios.

But for the original purposes of this discussion, the OP wants to sell products in this marketplace. And this marketplace has very conservative rules because, like most businesses, it does not want to spend a cent more than necessary on legal hassles, so it is not going to go out of the way to protect a vendor who may very well be using a work under "fair use" rules.  It will take the easy way and safe way because that's good business.  Any vendor who doesn't like that is, of course, free to set up their own site and sell from there. There's no legal or philosophical restriction.  Please don't mistake Renderosity marketplace practices for actual law.  It's just good practice if you want to be very safe.

---

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

good work moriador , could not of done better "Bravo" !!!

In your face for the rest LOL

Quote - good work moriador , could not of done better "Bravo" !!!

In your face for the rest LOL

Good for you. Feel free to swipe what you wish

I can only tell you that Renderosity will not accept it without written permission from the creator.

Laurie

Gate in the interests of Peace, have some of Lauries Special Brownies. have a few and sit and enjoy them...

Hint: no illegal drugs are allowed in the making of my brownies

Laurie

Gate. No offence here, but as I read your posts it sounds like you're looking for reasons to justify taking existing content, "improving" it and calling it yours. Which is akin to the OP's question about useage of 'found' content. In either case it's something that most stores won't accept. Nor will most artists, no matter what excuses are given. Also according to your posts so far, you say most poser products are poorly made and you can fix them. I've provided you with a fun and friendy challenge to show you can. Yet you remain silent. So can you actually do this or is that claim just hot forum air? Laurie - chuck me a illegaly baked cookie :) LOL

Pinky - you left the lens cap of your mind on again.

Quote - Laurie - chuck me a illegaly baked cookie :) LOL

You may not want one after you find out what's in it!

Oops! Did I say laxatives?

Laurie

Now that wasn't the natural small brown lumps I was thinking of :) LOL

Pinky - you left the lens cap of your mind on again.

Well MR Sparky I Whant to see you rigg a figure that is composed of Props sticked together and not a single mesh !! It is not a challange the provided modell is rather a joke , it is as if you would take different props set em together with penetrating parts then bone such a figure.

As I said I do not have any Intention to be Part of the Store In here , to make you understand , it is to be able to understand why do in here some make updates Or Improvements  based on Dirivitive works ( Morphs combined then saved as costum for example ) or and allot of Emprovements on Figures Some can be done some not but on the eula and based on your Meanings actually none of these should be approved , is it in here that each just puts rooles based on hes momentary mood.

If you would of read correctly the question was if somone could make Improvements and resell the CR2 witch contains the changes without redestributing the Obj and or the Textures  Just as it has been done many times especially on V2 then On V3, If not then Rooles might of changed again just  in this thread. I am not selling here you are the ones who sell ( Well critique was always the week point of an artist even if it was the trouth. ) I know it is hard to face reallity.   

I think you are fixed on an idea the everyone is a Thief but these are your experiences of Life and not all share the same Opinion. 

Well MR Sparky I Whant to see you rigg a figure that is composed of Props sticked together and not a single mesh !! It is not a challange the provided modell is rather a joke , it is as if you would take different props set em together with penetrating parts then bone such a figure.

 

you mean like a car, room, etc? we do that all the time..... standard for many models. eg a chest of drawers. model the drawers and the cabinet, rig them as the cabinet as the "body" of the figure and the drawers as the limbs...

I Mean some do a fine work in here others just make static work , If I get a Prop I expect some features For example I get a DM's Product they look great , but also is related with allot of work if you whant to have the parts to be movable as they are static. so to do so you go to the material room and ripp appart the whole thing save each material as idividual Prop then you reassemble the whole thing make a figure out of it or a new prop Parts can be moved the static is changed to a Functional Prop for animations.

It is a great Emprovement for the Originall figure. but as most in here say you Buy a figure and any changes cant be redestributed even if it is just an addon to improve the thing you actually bought it has to remain the same as it was sold. But if you take a V4 and make a WM out of it you may do so and redestribute the Improvement 

can you Please tell me where is the difference between the two acts of Modification. 

In the case of V4WM they have communicated with DAZ to find out what was and what was not allowed with respect to the EULA. If they would have followed your advise, there most likely would not have been a V4WM.

If you want to change a prop to make it more functional, you can do the same thing - ask the creator what you can and cannot do and how you should distribute the changes.

So far you have dissed most peoples work here and at DAZ as incomplete, disfuctional or ripped off. Can we see some of your handicraft in modelling?

 

as I remember correctly the discussions about V4 WM there where allot of Opinions how to be able to owerride the eula without getting in conflict with copyright , I assume that Daz was more flexible then most other creators concerning Hes Product !!

I am not Dissrespectfull actually just questioning your rooles witch seem pretty Conflicting.

You may not see any modifications  Made, as for you do not approve the changes and condem the Idea already befor it has been made. Confirming a Previous Comment that Ideas to emprove a artistic work  is intolerable causing that new creatores with great ideas have such a hard time to be able to redestribute there creations might give up before they even start! cause of to many questionable rooles that varrie thoughout each interpretation . 

If already the question to get information results as it is resulting in this thread and not even questioning The Answers Is tolerated and interprated as dissrespectfull then it only could be frequented by somone who is Gullable.  

So where are your models?

 

Khai-J-Bach - well said. gate - thanks for confirming what I've thought for a while. Probably not just me either :) wimvdb - now thats a very good question :)

Pinky - you left the lens cap of your mind on again.

Quote - . Confirming a Previous Comment that Ideas to emprove a artistic work  is intolerable causing that new creatores with great ideas have such a hard time to be able to redestribute there creations might give up before they even start! cause of to many questionable rooles that varrie thoughout each interpretation .

We've explained matters to you repeatedly.  But you continue to misunderstand. If you want to know why Daz permits certain types of add-ons to its figures, I strongly suggest you ask them directly, by email, or in their forums.  Then you will get the definitive answer, straight from the source.

Please don't take this the wrong way because I am not implying anything about your intelligence, but it seems very likely to me that the reason you are seeing lots of different interpretations that don't make sense to you is that copyright law is complicated, and I don't think your English is good enough to grasp the subtleties of interpretations and laws written in English. Your best bet will be to find the laws of your nation and study them in your language. Or ask a copyright lawyer who speaks your language to explain things to you.

---

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

Quote - and it is not the govenment or a Berne convention who makes the Law , we are the ones who restrict our selves we make the laws a eula just repeats what we decide

The Law is much more complicated than this and must fulfill some atributes to become a valid law.

1- A law must be promulgated by a legal autority following all the formal procedures.

Most of the laws fits in this, but there are "laws" that people think that is a law but are not laws because never were signed and published by any legal autority. Now it comes the second and important part that people almost don't know:

2- A Law must be accepted by the population. Most of the laws fail in this point and so are not a valid law. Population don't obbey these laws and if they do it is only due to police force. If a poliseman is looking at you, you follow the law, when the policeman turns his head looking at other direction, you ignore the law. It's like when athief puts a gun into your head you obbey him, but this doesn't make the bandit the Law.

3- The Law must be enforced. A law can exist, but nobody cares if is followed or not is not a valid law. There is agreat numbers of laws that fits into these cathegory. Nobody cares because it are impossible to be enforced, it are so ridiculous to be enforced, enforcing them will turn all into a chaos or are obsolette and nobody has removed them as for example, shops must have a post to tie the horse.

To end this here comes a phrase from Gandhi that I like very much:

"To disobey a law is a crime against the government. To obbey an unjust law is a crime against humanity."

Stupidity also evolves!

Quote - I Mean some do a fine work in here others just make static work , If I get a Prop I expect some features For example I get a DM's Product they look great , but also is related with allot of work if you whant to have the parts to be movable as they are static. so to do so you go to the material room and ripp appart the whole thing save each material as idividual Prop then you reassemble the whole thing make a figure out of it or a new prop Parts can be moved the static is changed to a Functional Prop for animations.

You have never done this. Try to do it and then tell me.

Stupidity also evolves!

I'd like to see a creator make the rear end of the toonkitty mimic compataible, then we'd have something that can talk sh*t and is actually usefull :) Seriously though kawecki, you know it ain't gonna happen. This is another one of those situs where someone reckons they know it all. Yet they rarely provide anything to back up their viewpoint.

Pinky - you left the lens cap of your mind on again.

Sorry that I could not respond to your comments right away , but as said this whole thing had its Purpose , as were working on Projects , and not as interprated from many of you to be able to runn a store At renderosity as an Artist.

In witch I sure whant to thank you all for the usefull informations and Help to resolve Planing issues for our further Site Projects , It was ment to be finding solutions how to support Art  Artists in a more convinent way Solutions to give those a chance who might not have any ( And No Mr Sparky It is not the Dark side ) Rather finding alternatives solutions to be able leading a project into the right direction. Economy needs new ideas and cant stand still. 

this is the way buisness really works Ideas will be provided from People Like you, to be able to achive a new Purpose.

and without knowing you might be one day part of this. changing your own Meaning about the things they once where , call it as you please , But this is evolution. 

Well obviously theres not always a dark side when artists look to improve their work. Indeed inpsiration from others can help. Plus usually when an artist creates new stuff they get better and thats where 'evolution' comes from. Personally, like most artists I know, I'd prefer that to be an evolution based on original thinking and creativity, not taking from the efforts of others. That doesn't restrict anyone either, if anything having to be unique makes us look at new ways, which in turn makes us better artists with better products. Certainly makes us better people than being simple aplogists for takers. Though I guess it's for some it's quicker and easier to argue for the right to use regardless, rather than actually trying to create something themselves. Trying to convince them otherwise is also an pointless uphill struggle, so I'm bowing out of this debate and make some new content for everyone to enjoy. Might even be legit - shock horror :)

Pinky - you left the lens cap of your mind on again.

Quote - Well I'd just like to know how many of the members who have responded here are copyrite attorneys?  On what authority or fact are the answers based upon?  I'd love to see some text or links directing the OP to these rules.  Far as I can tell, the only person making any "reasonable" sense is Gate...

 

Hi there. I'm new to the forums (and to Poser... I'm learning to use it to illustrate/make covers for my fictional works.) And I am in fact a licensed attorney who's been practicing intellectual property law for more than fifteen years. (I have a regular law license and a license from the USPTO.)

I have to tell you that if you had to pick one person on this discussion so far not to listen to, it would be Gate. Insomuch as I can follow what they say at all, it's usually misleading, inaccurate or flat out incorrect.

While I am a licensed attorney, nothing I say here is meant as legal advice nor should it be interpreted as such. You should always consult an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction and familiar with the relevant law before making legal decisions. And yes, I have to say that, and yes, I mean it.

That being said, the best rule of thumb is this:

if it's not yours, don't mess with it.

Good advice, as has been pointed out, when dealing with the company breakroom, good advice when playing on the playground, and good advice when dealing with intellectual property.

"Ah," I hear the cries arise. "What about... Fair Use!" dun dun dun

The first and foremost thing to remember about the Fair Use defense is that it is... a defense. When you have to assert a defense, it means things are already going south on you. Try not to put yourself in positions that have to be defended, and you will lead a more tranquil life.

The second thing to remember about Fair Use is that it is what lawyers call a question of fact. That means the law does not specifically define what is or isn't a Fair Use: the law defines the various factors which help the finder of fact (usually a jury or a judge) determine whether the particular use in question is a Fair Use.

This cannot be overemphasized: There is no, I repeat no*,* bright-line, quantifiable test as to whether something is a Fair Use.

Personal/Commercial use is not an automatic win. Making a profit or not is not an automatic win. Changing some arbitrary (and subjective) "percentage" of the original artwork is not an automatic win. There are no automatic wins. Period, end of sentence, full stop. The only way to be sure you will not be held liable for infringing a copyright is not to infringe it in the first place.

The international treaties which govern copyright are, as has been pointed out, quite complex. When the protections of a copyright issued in one country apply to uses in another country is a very complicated question and one which can't be addressed in a short forum post. However, anyone who lives in a country subject to the Berne/Paris copyright conventions, which is most of the people reading this post, should act on the assumption that copyrights from other countries are valid against any potential infringing use they might want to make, absent specifically looking up the copyright on the original work and seeing if some specific reason exists why it wouldn't. (As was pointed out one common reason is differing copyright terms.)

I hope that this provides some basic principles which people can use when considering these matters. I'll be happy to answer questions if I can, reminding you that I can't and won't give specific legal advice.

M

Quote - "As it stands, in the US, you need to register a work before you can sue."

My understanding is a little different.  You can sue in either case, it is what you can sue for that is different.

If it is registered, you can sue for damages.  If it is not registered, you can only sue to stop distribution/publication/sales of existing copies, but no monitary damages.

Close, but not quite right.

You cannot bring a suit in a US court for copyright infringement unless the copyright has been registered with the US Copyright Office. Period, end of sentence, full stop. The court will throw out your suit. (Although "without prejudice," which means you can register the copyright, and then refile your suit.) Fun fact: I once had a client who was sued in state court for breach of contract. The court ruled that what the plaintiff was really suing for was copyright infringement and threw out his suit because state courts don't have any jurisdiction over copyright infringement. He moved to a Federal court. The Feds asked him if he had the copyright registration. He said, "No, and I can't get it due to StMarc's client's dastardly doings." The court said, "That's a shame, Mr. Plaintiff. Case dismissed."

Edited to Add: Moriador is quite correct that the question of whether a copyright created in another country, and otherwise in compliance with that country's laws, is required to be registrered in the US before suit for an act of infringement that took place in the US is not definititvely settled. It won't be until the SCOTUS rules on the question, if it ever does. But, and this is not legal advice, in my opinion the general rule should be that a wise person will register before filing suit, even for a Berne/Paris-style copyright. There is a procedure to expedite the issuance of  the certificate if you are in need of it to file a suit against an infringer.

*Also, Moriador wonders about whether somebody could file a copyright application on someone else's art, effectively "stealing" the copyright. Yes, they can, it happens all the time. We have procedures for dealing with it which are outside the scope of this post. It is essentially what the plaintiff alleged happened in the case I referred to above. The court didn't buy his argument.

The distinction you make is a real one, but it doesn't do what you think it does. You can always sue for an injunction to stop the infringer doing what they're doing, and you can always sue for actual damages. What it controls is whether you can sue for statutory damages. These damages are set by law and form a minimum level of damages which do not depend on the actual damages (lost revenue, profits, etc) suffered by you. It can also control whether you are eligible for damage multipliers: wilfully infringing a registered copyright can lead to awards of up to TRIPLE damages plus costs and fees, which is a LOT of money. Minimum statutory damages are $750 per work, and maximum is $150,000.

Pretty interesting , then I assume that the creaores in here will have allot of work registring there work :-)  and actually was my first argument that before claiming it a complete creaton of theres it should be done this way , correct me if i am wrong , but if they would do so ,  the the releases could not flood like they do right not , it probably would slow down the publications considerably !!

 then also , well i assume that the creator will have to be able to prove on registring a product that this one is in no case a derrivitive work , is it, then they will have to attatch each written permission to the copyright.

do this also to protect the consumer ( Buyer ) , if not then it would be fraud causing the enduser also to get in troubble by using and publishing renders of derivitive non approved work!! 

well , if the creator really would be as senceare then the prices would rise to the Sky like grafic products that are licenced , there we recognize the licence on the pricing as they are considerably higher and not to compair with poser products.

especially considering that if a Creator has a pricig of 10$ the effective gain would be probably 7$ or 5$ the store gets the rest. 

I believe you're wrong on the fraud aspect, gate.  Far as I know, the purchaser of infringing content can't be held responsible for its use within the terms of use/license agreement which comes with the product.  In this case, I believe the law assumes the purchaser bought the item in good faith, unless there's clear and distinct evidence to show otherwise.

Keep in mind this has happend several times here and Renderosity - after consulting with their legal experts and the victims of copyright theft - will advise the purchasers of their options which usually boil down to:

Delete the bad content and receive a refund, or

Keep the bad content - if the victim gives permission - and use it as you would a legitimate product.  Please keep in mind this applies only if the victim gives permission.

Both scenarios have happened here in the past and good faith is always assumed on the part of the purchaser. 

A perfect example of the first scenario was a texture set series made by someone under the name of SuicideGirlz.  When it was found the name and the tattoos used were in violation, the products were pulled and people were told to delete them.

The second scenario happened when a vendor called ByteMe0k was found to have stolen textures from another artist, StefyZZ.  In these cases, Stefy gave permission for the stolen products to be used legitimately.  Renderosity, in this case, also gave customers the option of a refund on condition they deleted the offending content.  I took the option to keep them since they were useful to me at the time.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

Quote - I believe you're wrong on the fraud aspect, gate.  Far as I know, the purchaser of infringing content can't be held responsible for its use within the terms of use/license agreement which comes with the product.

Such a use is almost certainly not willful infringement, but the person who uses copyrighted material thinking they had a license, when they didn't, can still be liable for actual damages to the holder of copyright. Copyright infringement, at heart, is a tort of strict liability. (What lawyers call "mens rea" and what normal people call "intent" or "motive" is not required, save the intent to actually use the material.) They won't get damage multipliers and they probably won't get costs and fees, but the holder of copyright can get damages.

Example, although this is based on the right of publicity, not copyright: Model signs contract with agency giving it the right to release his right of publicity to clients under certain conditions. Model poses for product label photograph. Agency signs release to Manufacturer which gives more release than Agency had to give. Manufacturer uses Model's likeness on product label for many years before Model, completely by accident, finds out about it, and sues. Manufacturer claims defense of release. Result: Release was not valid because party who signed it had no authority to do so. Model wins.

This really happened and the model was awarded millions of dollars in damages. There's a lot more to it than this and I've oversimplified the reason that the release was no good, but that's the jist of it. Same thing can happen in copyright.

Again, not legal advice, consult a lawyer with respect to any actual and specific questions.

Quote - Such a use is almost certainly not willful infringement, but the person who uses copyrighted material thinking they had a license, when they didn't, can still be liable for actual damages to the holder of copyright. Copyright infringement, at heart, is a tort of strict liability. (What lawyers call "mens rea" and what normal people call "intent" or "motive" is not required, save the intent to actually use the material.) They won't get damage multipliers and they probably won't get costs and fees, but the holder of copyright can get damages.

Example, although this is based on the right of publicity, not copyright: Model signs contract with agency giving it the right to release his right of publicity to clients under certain conditions. Model poses for product label photograph. Agency signs release to Manufacturer which gives more release than Agency had to give. Manufacturer uses Model's likeness on product label for many years before Model, completely by accident, finds out about it, and sues. Manufacturer claims defense of release. Result: Release was not valid because party who signed it had no authority to do so. Model wins.

This really happened and the model was awarded millions of dollars in damages. There's a lot more to it than this and I've oversimplified the reason that the release was no good, but that's the jist of it. Same thing can happen in copyright.

Again, not legal advice, consult a lawyer with respect to any actual and specific questions.

Very useful, and good to know. Thank you.

---

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

Yep, extremely useful info.  Thank you for that.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

StMarc, you are a gem and a wealth of information.  Thanks.  :)

...... Kendra

You are all quite welcome.

Thanks StMarc, you definitely helped me as well.

 

Poser Pro 2012/3DS Max 2013/Adobe Photoshop Elements 10/Zbrush/

PC: HP Z820 Workstation, 3.30 ghz 8 core Intel Processor, 2gig nvidia Quadro, 16 gig of Ram and 2TB Hard Drive.

 

Ok now that was sure helpful , concerning registated copyrighted products. now how about unregistrated products containing  a  copyright standart txt doc.

as far as I know the unethic act would be to pretend to be the creator redestributing a unregistrated product under another name , if the one redestributing the product that is not registred  gives credit to the originall creator he actually does not claim rights on those. In this case no Copyright enfragment has taken place 

a litte sample of a copyrighted renderosity TXT doc. 

---

Ownership Statement:

All of the content in this package was created by *********** Me ********,
and may include derivatives of from me by Renderosity, RDNA and DAZ purchased merchant resources.
It includes also derivates of:

Photos from 3d.sk
My own photos and scans 

---

 now this is the standart Txt. but does not give any clue from whom what and if it really could be used in media industries or products !! It is to trust the creator not even knowing where the  derivates came from, and could be used as soutch. 

in this case the enduser Product has not been registrated but assumin that only one of it's containings (  derivates  ) is registrated copyright, did the creator witch already contradicted him self in the contracts first line .... made from me .... second line derivitives give the rights on the enduser with no qoncequences by using this product publicly. 

How to make a simple thing complicated.

Poser 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, P8 and PPro2010, P9 and PP2012, P10 and PP2014 Game Dev
"Do not drive faster then your angel can fly"!

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

> Quote - if the one redestributing the product that is not registred  gives credit to the originall creator he actually does not claim rights on those. In this case no Copyright enfragment has taken place

That is so utterly wrong, I don't even know what to say. You have merely repeated a common internet myth. But just because lots of people believe it does not make it true. Many people believe sentient extraterrestrials are controlling their government. But this does not make it true, no matter how badly they need to believe it.

Giving credit does not mean you are not infringing on copyright

-- UNLESS THE CREATOR GIVES PERMISSION. In the case of stock agencies and merchant resources, for instance, the creator has in all likelihood given permission. This is not hard to understand.

Read the laws, Gate. Just read the laws. 

---

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