So hey, I lucked out and found some very hi-res Gellar Photos floating around in the ether. This is not my first attempt at making photo-textures, but previous attempts left me cold. Here, I think I finally got on to something with a huge thanks to "Liquify" in photoshop. I have said in the past that I intended to always give freely, all the time, but I never imagined that I'd produce a good texture for Vicky. If interest is high, and reviews are good here, I may put it in the store for Five dollars if they'll have me. What say you, good people? -WTB

Excellent likeness and a nice-looking texture. I do have a suggestion, though. Right now she looks as if she is wearing a "mask". Although it may be exactly how you found it in the photos, I suggest you change the tone around the jaw, nose, and upper lip to better match the very natural looking forehead and cheeks.

A great start, from what I know about such things. Shes a little cross-eyed, but that seems endemic to Vicky, from what I read in another thread on C&D that shall remain nameless 8-). But it looks great, WTB.

The head is darker than the rest of the body. It just doesn't look right that way.

The Blackness you see around the nose and some other areas is not evident on the texmap. I believe this is a faux-paus (sp?) of the lighting I used. I will fire off another render with less offensive lighting and see if that helps. Also, please understand that there is no body texture matching at this moment, so naturally the skin is going to look different from the body (creating the mask effect referenced?) -WTB

Good Buffy, want Buffy! I'll want to see the rest of the texture, but $5 works for me. VirtualSite, the turn in the eye whether intentional by WTB is actually a characteristic of Geller. She does actually have one eye turned that seems to get worse the more tired she gets.

No.. the "mask" effect I was referring to was the differing skin tone around the nose, upperlip, and jaw area. Try some different lighting if you think the lighting is at fault. =)

If I decide to sell, it will only be a Head Texture. I personally find very little use in creating body textures. The only significant detail of Sarah's body/skin is the enormous amount of bleached hair on her forearms. As you can see, the DAZ Medium Toned (standard res) map works fine. For the head, though, it's nice to be able to accompany a good morph with the person's standard make-up, eyebrows, eyes and chin moles :) -WTB

Much much better. It was the lighting, indeed. Very nice work. =)

Looking good.
Just curious - - what's Gellar's percentage if you are using her likeness to peddle merchandise?

Are you good? Yeah, I'd say so. This sort of thing probably isn't easy. At least it wasn't when I last tried it (and failed!), over a year ago. Yours' is a pretty damn good match-up twixt the face and the photo. But, what about the copyrights of the photos you used? Just be careful. Pretty chick, by the way. :)

I think the head texture is pretty good... but I honestly would never buy just a head texture... sure you could use the Daz tex for the body... assuming you HAVE the daz tex... I don't... shrug even for five dollars I wouldn't buy just a head tex... spectre3 is putting out really good full textures for 5 dollars these days...

excellent work on the morph (which i hadn't taken a good look at before, i assume you've had that available a while) ... is there a way to shrink the visible amount of lacrimal? they are offputting. and pretty good texture. it still looks a bit like the chin area suffers from too much smudging/liquifying cos it doesn't have as much tone variation as the cheeks and forehead. either add a little lighter spot there or remove the lighter spots from the cheeks and forehead so the whole thinmg matches. lighting enthusiasts would probably preffer the latter so there aren't fake highlights on the texture. how to address the "found on the ether and selling it" issue?

I skipped over the copyright issue.. I don't know anything about this type of copyright question. ;)

William, Nice texture work. Much better than my quickie Spike texture :) I think the mask effect referred to is probably because of those slightly lighter patches under the eyes. If you burn those a little in pshop it should even out the tone some. Your morph again? :) Hm. We have Angel, Spike and Buffy. Okay, Willow next? :) Lyrra

Well, first of all, the package would not be called "Buffy" or "Sarah Michelle Geller". Probably "WTB's Head-Texture for Neo-Durga Mythology Character" or something equally vague. Secondly, when you look at the texture map, it no longer "Looks" like SMG per se, as things get distorted when trying to conform everything to a template. As for relation to the original photographs, I'd have to check around on this but I think that such huge amounts of cutting/pasting/distorting/frankensteining eliminate the threat of infringement. The texmap compared to the original photos are not recognizable. I realize "just a head map" may not appeal to some. That's fine, can't please 'em all. I'm not a body texturer due to reasons stated. What I plan to do is to include 3 or 4 different tones of the head texture, pale, tan (shown), somewhere in between, and downright ghastly. Also, a couple different shades in lipstick. Each change would have the appropriate Material Pose file. Also toying around with including a "Neo Durga" Ultimate Morph file, a set of "Durga-Rific" Poses for all of Neo-Durga's Demon Slaying activities. All demo pics in the store will show the texture on a non-morphed Vicky. It may very well be that the Store will not allow the package to be sold, for whatever reasons. I abide by them in all things.

Uh, well, I still think that in spite of the obvious successful effort you put into it, it just wouldn't be a good idea to utilize a previously-existing photo as a texture, no matter how much you tweak it. The morphs are good. There is one other thing you might consider in order to eliminate all worries of copyright infringement, and that is, if you're serious about the whole deal, take some real photos of someone, and be sue you own the rights. If you did it with this, you can do it again. Also, you could do a whole body deal, and not just the head. Personally, my advice would be to not even consider attempting to sell anything that wasn't 100% your's. Even as a freebie, it's not a good idea to do so.

I thought that serious modification meant that it was new work. Can you really copyright human skin?

Technically, yes, digitally speaking. (Of course you can't copyright skin, but you can most definitely copyright a physical or digital portrayal of said skin). If it's been done, by someone other than you, it's not your's to use. It's ridiculously complex to explain, but in essence those pixels belong to someone else. Merely altering them doesn't cut it. The only way is to have your own pixels, which you own.

Mike: Are you a copyright lawyer? I am not trying to sound snarky, please believe me, but I would really like to see this question answered definitively by someone who really knows the law. I don't see how your answer jibes with, say, collage artists, who sell work that is entirely made up of pictures by other people.

Regarding the whiter circles under the eyes: This is a genuine trait of SMG. My guess is that her make-up artist is trying very hard to eliminate Dark circles that no doubt form from the stress of filming such important works as "Scoobie Doo: The Movie" and having to look at Freddie Prinze Jr. on a regular basis. On second glance at the cardboard standee in my room, and the source pics, it strikes me that she probably wears the goggles while tanning in a booth. At any rate, in all of the photos, the white is obvious. As for the copyright issue, it seems MikeJ is coming from an ethical place rather than a legal one. Last I heard, any image that is modified by a certain percentage is fair game. If I remember correctly, it's a suprisingly low percentage! (25% different is what I seem to remember.) Going from several photos to texture, I've say I've mangled the originals by at least 60%. There is no hair, there is background, there are no clothes. Eyes are shrunken, rotated and moved. The foundation is stretched and contorted. The edges are liquified and blurred. The actual cut and paste from source materials is about 10% and 3% of total image size respectively (two were used, one for lips only.) The texture template itself uses approximately 50% of it's space to the frontal head texture and eye portion. The rest is white space or other crap not sampled at all. I'm no mathematician, but I'd say numerically I'm in the clear. -WTB

The fictional character of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" may be subject to copyright protection. The real person Sarah Michelle Geller is not subject to copyright protection. The real person Sarah, however, may have trademark protection in her name and likeness. Photographs of the real Sarah may be protected by copyright. Whether using such photographs to create a texture copies those photographs depends on what was done.

There are two ways of protecting oneself legally, if the texture is to be sold. One is to consult an intellectual property lawyer. Two is to contact the appropriate agent/trademark holder/copyright holder.

A while back, someone had a similar question about distributing free models of Marvel characters. Out of curiousity, I e-mailed the legal liason at Marvel, and got an answer as to what they thought acceptable (generally, they don't care about fans drawing Marvel characters for the fans' personal amusement, not for profit, and recognizing Marvel's ultimate ownership of the character). A letter that condones distributing a texture likeness is a lot more sure than guessing.

Last I heard, any image that is modified by a certain percentage is fair game. If I remember correctly, it's a suprisingly low percentage! (25% different is what I seem to remember.) please check up on that.

From http://www.cni.org/Hforums/cni-copyright/1997-03/0121.html "If an altered work is substantially similar in any significant part of its protectable expression, it is an infringement (unless there is an applicable defense, such as fair use). "Substantially similar", "similar in any significant part," and "protectable expression" are all terms notable for their ambiguity and context-specific nature. I do not believe there are any "guidelines" on how much must be changed, though I have heard many myths to this effect." Mark Lemley Assistant Professor, University of Texas School of Law Of Counsel, Fish & Richardson, P.C. mlemley@mail.law.utexas.edu

From the Copyright for Collage Artists web site (http://funnystrange.com/copyright/derivative.htm): "Most important to the collage artist is that a derivative work can only include copyrighted material if it is created by the owner of the copyright on the original material, or with that person's permission. This means that making a collage that includes photos from National Geographic, Rand McNally maps, or pictures of Andy Warhol paintings, is illegal unless you have obtained permission from whoever owns the copyright on those works."

Clearly there is much confusion... And finally, from http://www.whitmorelaw.com/Copyright/Derivative.html "Here are the words of the U.S. Supreme Court: "The first factor in a fair use enquiry is "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes." 107(1). This factor draws on Justice Story's formulation, "the nature and objects of the selections made." Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F. Cas., at 348. The enquiry here may be guided by the examples given in the preamble to 107, looking to whether the use is for criticism, or comment, or news reporting, and the like, see 107. The central purpose of this investigation is to see, in Justice Story's words, whether the new work merely "supersedes the objects" of the original creation, Folsom v. Marsh, (supra) , at 348; accord, Harper & Row, (supra), at 562 ("supplanting" the original), or instead adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message; it asks, in other words, whether and to what extent the new work is "transformative." Leval 1111. Although such transformative use is not absolutely necessary for a finding of fair use, Sony, (supra) , at 455, n. 40, *fn11 the goal of copyright, to promote science and the arts, is generally furthered by the creation of transformative works. Such works thus lie at the heart of the fair use doctrine's guarantee of breathing space within the confines of copyright, see, e. g., Sony, (supra) , at 478-480 (BLACKMUN, J., dissenting), and the more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors, like commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fair use." Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994). The point here is that if a new work merely recasts the copyrighted material in a different medium, then it is "derivative" and infringing. But if the later work builds upon the earlier version and adds new content, then it is "transformative" and non-infringing."

Your Buffy model's eyes show too much white sclera underneath her corneas, making her look she's got either thyroid eye disease or lagophthalmos (rabbit eyes). The lower lid margin should normally reach up to the lower edge of the cornea.

Her eyes are slightly rotated up, revealing white beneath. Apart from that, this is generally the case with SMG as evidenced in about 20 of 25 source photos. Looking for texture comments here primarily. -WTB

i won't take part of debates. i will just sayt that it is a great work and an excellent lookalike !!!

Also, I won't take part of this debate, just want to comment on the texture, it is really amazing. Sharen

Any chance of pointing the rest of us at the "very hi-res Gellar Photos floating around in the ether"? I'd love to see them ... being a big Buffy fan too :)

WTB - First of all, great texture. Second, I don't think copyright is your problem. If you distribute the image you may be liable for civil damages from one (or more) of the invasion of privacy torts ((1) Intrusion, (2) Appropriation, (3) Private Facts, or (4) False light. E.g. the tort of appropriation is the commercial use of a persn's name, image or likenes withut permission (Restatement 2nd of Torts para 652a-652i) Best advice is consult your attorney before you proceed.

I know a couple of visual artists who use a lot of "appropriated" images in their work--sometimes without changing them at all (these are often well-known commercial or corporate images, like the Marlboro cowboy). One of them has actually been contacted by attorneys for Philip Morris, who asked him to stop using their stuff. He did. Case closed. I think if you sold your tex for $5, you'd be so far under the radar nobody'd mess with you. You could also claim that your tex was a parody of any copyrighted/trademarked image or character; parodies are protected by the 1st amendment. Great tex/morphs, by the way. A bargain at 5 clams.

And, re the Supreme Court--seems to me wrapping an altered photo around a CG 3D model is about as transformative as you can get; whole new use, whole new context, whole new meaning. I would guess the original photo in this context would be unrecognizable, even to the photographer.

Well, I'd say that the final result is this: Selling the proposed tex pak for $5 would probably not get me a date in court. The work itself is pretty good if not Catharina-rific. I have a feeling that the store would decline to sell it, either way, just in case. I may inquire anyway. Ultimately, they have the final word. -WTB

I am with you, Mosca. The "buffy/gellar" thing might be a tougher issue due to a celebrity likeness, but people who take 20 photos from the net and merge them together into one coherent skin texture.. I really don't see how that is a problem.

I'm very new at the whole Poser thing after having spent over 30 years as a traditional painter (remember oil paint and canvas?)and I've been checking out all the Poser stuff on the net and wondering what is the real use for such highly detailed Poser figures? Aside from being able to make your own little porno pinups and getting off on peer acclaim because you can make pubic hair look real, I'm wondering what is the practical business use of this technology. I mean so you can map Buffy's face to a Poser figure. What can you do with it? I see lots of people spending lots of time trying to make the Poser figures look as real as possible and patting each other on the back for their accomplishments, but I'm looking to make a career-change in art and digital seems to be the way to go for the future. How can mastering the realism of Poser, being able to make realistic textures and clothes lead to a significant career of some kind?

bobhobz, your attitude sucks. Won't even try to respond to your question with an attitude like that. -WTB

The ability to produce photo-realistic people and objects is in high demand for architectural and product visualisation, which can be pretty well paid.

I haven't seen this done yet, but I bet that Poser would be extremely useful for romance novel "clinch" covers. Anyway, Bob, your superior attitude about being a "real" painter makes me think you should just stick to that.

"(remember oil paint and canvas?)" Yes, and surgeons still remember stone knives and axes. "How can mastering the realism of Poser, being able to make realistic textures and clothes lead to a significant career of some kind?" Well, commercial clients tend to like it that way. (Duh!) Seriously, are you not familiar with the current trends in commercial illustration and animation... from print, to web design, to television spot advertising, to video games, to Saturday morning cartoons, all the way to feature films? Granted that obviously the Poser app itself is rarely the sole or final tool involved, it is yet an efficient and highly capable tool to have in ones arsenal. To disregard it as merely a toy is reminiscent of the attitude of some of the long forgotten commercial artists of 25 years ago regarding the emergence of the first computer paint programs -- that eventually led to Photoshop, now the ubiquitous tool in the commercial art world. If you are not joking or Trolling here, then indeed the industry has passed you by and perhaps you might want to just check into house painting. -unusually snippy Nance (why do I let myself get suckered into these things?)

oooh - oooh! better, more succinct answer: ...and, if you were around in 1860, would you have felt the same way about that new-fangled photography fad?

bobhobz: Thirty years in painting. No doubt you have lots to share when it comes to composition. But you're on our killing floor now, and introducing yourself by pissing in the punchbowl won't score you point one here, no matter how many paintings you've done, be they high-end airbrush photorealism, stark expressionism, Bob Ross happy trees, and/or anything inbetween. Sit down, scan the gallery, show some respect and maybe, just maybe someone here will help you when you ask for it. Last I checked they don't have books on Poser in the Walter Foster section of your local Michael's.

Looks like I pissed quite a few of you off. Sorry about that. Didn't mean to. Perhaps I'm just jealous that you guys can do this amazing stuff and I can't. I may not be a whiz at the digital stuff yet, but I can do a fairly decent painting every now and then. James Marsters loved the portrait I did of him last year. I'll be heading out to Hollywood in a couple weeks to see him. I think he'd be quite impressed with your work, William. Bob

Of course you can do this amazing stuff. You just can't -- yet. Give James our regards.

To Nance and the group, yeah, I guess I had it coming to me after my initial posting. And I got my lip bloodied over it. But seriously, you're all pretty damn good.

Attached Link: http://home.wnm.net/~bgriff/allie/