Anthony Appleyard opened this issue on Feb 18, 2015 · 27 posts
Anthony Appleyard posted Wed, 18 February 2015 at 10:48 AM
In my Poser 10's library I found a helibackpack and a jetpack: see
http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/?thread_id=2888353
I have made some changes to my copy of it: mesh-tidying; making the backpack harness adjustable for various sizes of people; adding a jockstrap so he won't fall out of the harness while flying. I cannot distribute the result about because it is likely copyright. I want to forward the result to the model's copyright owner, in case it is any use to him, but who is its copyright owner?
This is NOT a warez offer, and it is NOT for money.
Its geometry files are in ...Poser 10RuntimeGeometriesCP PartnersVP... , in case that is a clue.
Kenmac posted Wed, 18 February 2015 at 11:26 AM
I think that would be Vanishing Point.
WandW posted Wed, 18 February 2015 at 11:36 AM
I only have Poser pro 2014, not Poser 10, so the EULA is likely different because it includes distributable content, so check Section G of the Program License. As far as the Restricted Content goes it gives the right (section G),
b. To prepare derivative works based upon the Restricted Content solely for Legitimate Uses and lawful uses.
c. To reproduce, prepare derivative works based upon, distribute, publicly display, and publicly perform content you create using Restricted Content, provided that such use of Restricted Content shall be solely Legitimate Uses and lawful uses.
Since everything is included In Poser, I'd sure that distributing the cr2 would be fine. If that's not possible because of the mesh changes, RTEncode it against the original geometry file, which will ensure that it only being used by those who can lawfully use it...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Wisdom of bagginsbill:
"Oh - the manual says that? I have never read the manual - this must be why."
WandW posted Wed, 18 February 2015 at 11:43 AM
I think that would be Vanishing Point.
Indeed it is; in fact, it's by our own Mrsparky, so send him a site mail here... :)
http://www.vanishingpoint.biz/clientrecommend.asp
• Heli-Jet Pack: A jet pack with helicopter blades; by mrsparky.
• Jet Pack: A jet pack without helicopter blades; by mrsparky.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Wisdom of bagginsbill:
"Oh - the manual says that? I have never read the manual - this must be why."
Teyon posted Wed, 18 February 2015 at 11:44 AM
Yeah, I'm pretty sure anything in the VP folder is made by Vanishing Point. They're a third party. Not sure if this violates the TOS but here's a link to them:
http://www.vanishingpoint.biz/
As far as distributing goes, I really can't speak to that. I would think Wandw's right but you should contact our support team for an official response on this. Better to be safe ya know?
mrsparky posted Wed, 18 February 2015 at 3:34 PM
Yep, it's VP and me. Or more precisely it dates back to when CP used to ask content creators to provide material for each new version of Poser.
It was a nice way of allowing artists to say thanks to the makers of Poser and the community which supports us.
EF and SM would respect that as well by giving the creators a copy of the DVD and later on a download. Plus in some versions anyone who contributed got a - slightly misnamed personally :) - credit on the about screen.
To make life easier for everyone, content creators like EDW, Panos, Helgard, etc and (with these jetpacks) myself and John Hoagland, would upload our contributions under the Vanishing Point name and licence.
Not sure if this one was was for the P6 or P7 release, but back then I'd just started modelling so yes the mesh-work wouldn't be so good as my recent stuff. Though thats in a way academic as most of the content we made for the poser DVD's was 100% unique for each release. Most of it was never sold/given away afterwards and generally never has been.
It was only available through that release and later on (when SM SM stopped asking content creators to make new stuff) via their optional free downloads - like the poser 9 additional content packs. A thing that personally I've always kept to and never re-released my contributions.
mrsparky posted Wed, 18 February 2015 at 3:40 PM
heres the credits screen - sorry darn image wouldn't add to last post
Anthony Appleyard posted Wed, 18 February 2015 at 5:23 PM
Please what is RTEncode and where can I get it?
primorge posted Wed, 18 February 2015 at 5:54 PM
www.rtencoder.com
primorge posted Wed, 18 February 2015 at 6:00 PM
"RTEncoder is a software utility used to protect computer files. The purpose of this application is to allow a user to protect a computer file by encoding it into an RTE file. Then the RTE file would be sent to another user who would use RTEncoder to decode the RTE file back into the original computer file. The goal is that while protected in the RTE file, the original computer file can not be decoded by a user who is not authorized to view that file."
To learn more and download the current version of RTEncoder, visit:http://www.rtencoder.com
Anthony Appleyard posted Wed, 18 February 2015 at 6:03 PM
How similar is it to the old ObjAction Mover? If the original mesh file is supplied as .obz , can it unzip it and extract the contained .obj file, to convert it to the new changed form?
primorge posted Wed, 18 February 2015 at 6:31 PM
Stumped on that one, Anthony.
fictionalbookshelf posted Thu, 19 February 2015 at 1:08 AM
I have Poser 10. I wish I had Poser Pro though. Anyways I found this clause in Poser 10 version: (if anyone can simplify this I would greatly appreciate it.
2.2. Contributor Grant. Each Contributor hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license, subject to third party intellectual property claims:
(a) to use, reproduce, modify, display, perform, sublicense and distribute the Modifications created by such Contributor (or portions thereof) either on an unmodified basis, with other Modifications, as Covered Code or as part of a Larger Work; and
(b) under patents now or hereafter owned or controlled by Contributor, to Utilize the Contributor Version (or portions thereof), but solely to the extent that any such patent is reasonably necessary to enable You to Utilize the Contributor Version (or portions thereof), and not to any greater extent that may be necessary to Utilize further Modifications or combinations.
3.1. Application of License. The Modifications which You create or to which You contribute are governed by the terms of this License, including without limitation Section 2.2. The Source Code version of Covered Code may be distributed only under the terms of this License or a future version of this License released under Section 6.1, and You must include a copy of this License with every copy of the Source Code You distribute. You may not offer or impose any terms on any Source Code version that alters or restricts the applicable version of this License or the recipients' rights hereunder. However, You may include an additional document offering the additional rights described in Section 3.5.
3.2. Availability of Source Code. Any Modification which You create or to which You contribute must be made available in Source Code form under the terms of this License either on the same media as an Executable version or via an accepted Electronic Distribution
Mechanism to anyone to whom you made an Executable version available; and if made available via Electronic Distribution Mechanism, must remain available for at least twelve (12) months after the date it initially became available, or at least six (6) months after a subsequent version of that particular Modification has been made available to such recipients. You are responsible for ensuring that the Source Code version remains available even if the Electronic Distribution Mechanism is maintained by a third party
primorge posted Thu, 19 February 2015 at 4:37 AM
Betcha Moriador could decipher that legalese.
WandW posted Thu, 19 February 2015 at 8:08 AM
Please what is RTEncode and where can I get it?
RTEncoder is a commercial program that is free for decoding, but you have to buy a license to encode. However, there is a totally free Java version:
http://www.geocities.ws/RTEJava/beta/
It's similar to Objaction Mover, but it doesn't involve a difference file, but encrypts the entire file (which can be an entire zip archive) against a key file.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Wisdom of bagginsbill:
"Oh - the manual says that? I have never read the manual - this must be why."
mrsparky posted Thu, 19 February 2015 at 2:08 PM
In purely practical terms for artist I wouldn't worry about any differences twixt RTEncode and Objactionmover.
Both require an "original" version of whatever is being moved over.
As for that legalise the core phrases in 2.2 are Covered Code, Larger Work and Utilize.
In very basic terms what this means to you is...
Covered code..
If the thing had (or itself used) something like a Creative Commons licence.
Academic here as this model doesn't have such a licence.
Larger Work...
This is the bit which lets you make images, animations etc etc and call these creations yours. These creations are yours and yours alone, you hold the copyright etc. However you can't say the original thing is yours. As a secondary point note the words non-exclusive. That means anyone could use the thing, make a picture identical to yours and you couldn't do b*gger all about it.
Utilize...
This allows you to adapt it to suit your needs, but only your needs. It doesn't give you rights to give them them away.
The redistribution section is less clear as it only mentions Covered Code not other licences. So then the general rule - when reading legalise - is to fall back to sections which do cover those points. Which in this instance basically says no you can't modify and give that modification away.
Oh, usual disclaimer here, while I read some business law at uni, as Ms Nancy likes to say ..I ain't a lawyer :)
mrsparky posted Thu, 19 February 2015 at 2:23 PM
Legalise aside - while I don't have any problems with AA doing this, it does make me ponder with situ's like this...
It's a really old model, new work is better etc.
IF someone can get some new mileage out of it feel free.
It's hardly an original concept, indeed one of my inspirations was the helicopter back-pack for the 1970's Action Man (GI Joe).
Should artists still be able to retain their ideas with a medium (unlike say painting) where their creations can modified.
Equally the no part of me wonders things like..It was given to CP/community for the reasons mentioned above.
As a colleague asked recently (similar thing) why would another artist want to 'remake' something old.
Should our older ideas of copyright and ownership a moot point in today's world.
... so whats's the community's feelings about things like this in general?
mrsparky posted Thu, 19 February 2015 at 5:02 PM
important update: just heard from another creator who contributed in this way.
it seems the copyright on these 2 models was given to the makers of poser,therefore I'm unable to give any permissions for anyone to modify and/or redistribute these ones.
Something - that isn't a uncommon situation within the world of licensing and content creation.
Meshbox posted Sat, 21 February 2015 at 10:43 AM
important update: just heard from another creator who contributed in this way.
it seems the copyright on these 2 models was given to the makers of poser,therefore I'm unable to give any permissions for anyone to modify and/or redistribute these ones.
Something - that isn't a uncommon situation within the world of licensing and content creation.
Did you expressly grant SM (or E Frontier America) your copyright in the models? There are models included in Poser from us, and we did not transfer any copyright at all. Our stuff is there for normal art usage.
Best regards,
chikako
Meshbox Design | 3D Models You Want
mrsparky posted Sat, 21 February 2015 at 9:19 PM
With this particular model that's what I'm lead to belive from a colleague. While I can't see any reason that he's wrong, given the sheer amount of work I've created/co-produced in the last 12-15 years just on 3dstuff alone(without including traditional media or photography) yea it's possible I'm incorrect and I do in fact still own the IP.
Also unlike a painting which you sell once, digital work is more akin to a commidity. You might sell the rights or licence the work to one artist, he sells that to another and a larger company buys the lot. So very to get confused at times. However even if I/we didn't assign anything, and the IP is still mine/ours, I'm now wondering in regard to the original question if it's all a moot point.
While I don't have any problems with AA re-jigging it, it's really old stuff. I've got no interest in hosting/handling such an item, moreso as it was created for another
purpose. SM isn't going to remaster all their discs and downloads for something like that either.
Yes changes could be RTE encoded, but how many artists will rush to grab something they've already got? Especially if any 'improvement' is likely to untextured. Which is why I now think AA could be better off making his own versions of this concept, after all it's hardly an idea thats original or unique.
mrsparky posted Sat, 21 February 2015 at 9:20 PM
BTW - Our stuff is there for normal art usage ?
Meshbox posted Sun, 22 February 2015 at 12:41 AM
BTW - Our stuff is there for normal art usage ?
They've bundled a few Meshbox items over the years. No permission was given to allow end users to redistribute it, just render / animate, etc.
Best regards,
chikako
Meshbox Design | 3D Models You Want
mrsparky posted Sun, 22 February 2015 at 6:42 AM
Which is the same with almost all licences and mine or VP is no different.
So nice to see that AA was asking if it was OK to make some changes.
Which as above, I have no problem with if he wants to. Though I can't see any benefit to doing it that way.
Teyon posted Sun, 22 February 2015 at 7:43 AM
So...not to be "that guy" but, did anyone actually contact the support team for an answer? Just wondering. I have nothing else to contribute.
pumeco posted Sun, 22 February 2015 at 7:47 AM
Teyon, just curious, as Teyon is your real name, where does it originate from?
You're the only person I've ever heard called Teyon, sounds pretty cool to have as a real name, I used to think it was just your username :-)
Teyon posted Sun, 22 February 2015 at 8:02 AM
Random but ok, I'll bite, lol Thanks, pumeco. It's actually a not uncommon surname here in the US and in parts of Indonesia. Online I've found very few Americans with it as their first name spelled the way I spell it- a wrestler (olympic style, not WWF), a porn star turned criminal and myself. Other spellings, like Tionne Watkins of TLC and Tian (I think that's Chinese for Heaven) and of course the Japanese (and often female name) Teyon, I see more often. There's even a Polish gaming company called, Teyon (though without a doubt they pronounce it Tay-yawn).
The exact origin of the name though, I couldn't tell you. Sadly, that's one I've never been able to sort out.
Interestingly I found some random site that tried to tell me what my name meant through description instead of a clear cut, "this is what it means". A lot of the description fit me well - with the exception of trying to control everything, which I don't (and probably should) do. In fact, here's my attempt now: Let's get back on topic, lol.
pumeco posted Sun, 22 February 2015 at 8:19 AM
No no, I was genuinely curious, I think it's quite a slick-sounding name!
But you're right, sorry, OT is a curse with me, I just can't help it, I don't even realise I'm doing it half the time :-D