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

I found an interesting article today that I thought free stuff contributors should read. I notice that alot of the free stuff I've downloaded has "no commercial use" in the readme. However today I read this article and I thought free stuff contributors should read it. It might help you make the choice between whether you want to offer your items for free or for sale. Basically when you upload to free stuff you are making your work "public domain" (at least for purposes of this article). And the quote from the article is: "Note that granting something to the public domain is a complete abandonment of all rights. You can't make something "PD for non-commercial use." If your work is PD, other people can even modify one byte and put their name on it." So if you really don't want your work used in commercial stuff, you shouldn't offer it for free. Otherwise you run this risk. I know that most free stuff contributors mean that the actual FILE can't be sold, and that renders made with the items CAN be sold. But this is not the case with all. So I thought I should make everyone aware of this so they can avoid potential abuse of their intended use of their contributions. I know the free stuff vs. commercial use has opened up flame wars in the past, and that is not my intention here. I just want to make everyone aware of the legalities of this type of thing. I also don't even know for sure this article is accurate. But I think it certainly warrants further research from those who are truly interested in their rights.

You mis-read the article. There is no "public domain" unless the copyright holder specifically says there is. So people don't need to worry about their freestuff rights, since their material is automatically copyrighted and subject to whatever use restrictions they put on it. Dishonest people will still try to sell freestuff items, but they can't use the "public domain" fallacy to try to make it legal.

Well, it's the "PD for non-commercial use." part that makes me wonder. Most readme files that restrict commercials use use almost those very words... "free for non-commercial use" or something similar. In effect, they are making the file "PD for non-commercial use." So I think that could be used. Maybe not to sell the file itself, but I think if some people changed it somewhat and sold it, it might hold up in court. Obviously I'm no attorney or judge, but this is something to think about.

Your assumption that giving something away automatically makes it public domain is erroneous. A creator must specifically state that they are giving up all rights to their creation before it attains Public Domain status.

Hmm, but that's not what the article says. I guess that it is possible that they have to use the exact words "public domain", but it's a gray area. Another quote: "Nothing modern is in the public domain anymore unless the owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*). Explicitly, as in you have a note from the author/owner saying, "I grant this to the public domain." Those exact words or words very much like them." Words very much like them... To me, "free for non-commercial use" and "public domain for non-commercial use" sound very much alike. They are in effect saying that anyone in the public can use the items, but they are saying that they are restricting it's use to non-commercial only, and the article says they can't do that. That doesn't seem fair, but it's what the article says. Maybe a copyright attorney will happen across this and clarify. It just seems like something that contributors need to be made aware of in case something ever arises with regard to their items and "fair use".

"they have to use the exact words "public domain"" That is exactly the point. That is not a gray area. The words "Public Domain" must be printed in the license or terms of usage, and it is a very specific terminology you will attach to your item. You are giving away the copyright to your item. It does not happen lightly and no-one can use it by accident unless they have no idea what Public Domain means. If the words "Public Domain" do not appear, then the item is not "Public Domain." Free (with or without any restrictions) is never public domain unless "Public Domain" is printed there.

Attached Link: http://pangaea.topcities.com/home.htm

MissTara, where was this article printed? You didn't give a source. I have a few free things on my website and I give royalty-free use both commerical and noncommercial, for everything I give away. I give from the heart and don't expect gratification. I want people to have the things they need for thier images. I do, however, restrict the redistribution of the meshes. But any images they render using my items in them are for whatever use they need it for. I'm not looking to get rich (and Heaven knows I could use it), I just want people to be able to find something they've been looking for. If it's one of my things, great, and I'm flattered that they find it right for what they needed. In the case of items I've downloaded from other sites, I've written to the author of the item and asked if I could use it, and each time, they've been very generous and said yes. As with most things, if in doubt, just write to the author and ask. It can't hurt, and you may develop a nice working relationship with that person and he/she will allow you to use other items. Melanie PS: here's the link to my site. Feel free to use anything you like.

Oops! Sorry, I see you have a link to a site now. I retract the bit about a source. Sorry. blush Melanie :)

The reason the term Public Domain came about was to differentiate it from free items. You must state that it is Public Domain, in other words, it must be stated by the original creator that it is public domain before someone can take it as their own. No grey areas here. Marque

I thought I should clarify a little here. I'm feeling a little animosity towards me and I want to make it aboslutely clear that I was giving this URL for the sake of posters to free stuff, NOT because I was complaining about the people who offer free stuff and pose restrictions! Those who pose restrictions are perfectly within their rights to do so, and I thought I was being helpful in posting this. I thought from the way this article sounds that free stuff contributos who tried to challenge this type of thing in court might face problems because of this. Especially from other people who read this article and decide to use it as their defence. I certainly think that some judges might look at this as meaning the same thing. I highly doubt all judged are versed on internet free stuff policies and netiquette. Melanie, thanks for the link to your stuff. It's all absolutely stunning! Thank you for being so generous with your stuff :)

No, I didn't feel you were complaining, I felt you were worried and wanted other people to see what you were worried about. Thank you for the heads-up, it helps to have so many eyes out there watching out for the Poser community interest, and it was appreciated...at least by me. Keep your eyes and ears open, because info is always appreciated. Marque

Miss Tara, I don't think anyone is upset with you, just trying to point out that you have misunderstood.

There is no problem in fighting this in court if one actually wants to spend the money to do so and has adequate proof of creation.

The pitfall in regards to freestuff and copyright infringement is that since it is free a creator can basically only get a cease and desist order. They will not garner any monetary reward and often times they won't even get their court costs paid. After all a creator can not prove a loss of income if the item was free.

Also in regards to changing an item and then reselling it - that is also copyright infringement. Many people believe that if they change an item a certain percentage they are safe, this is not true. If the item you change is the base for something else you are violating copyrights.

Look at the hoopla that occurs in the marketplace when vendors use parts of a texture from a free texture, maybe just a tongue and the nipples - it's still a violation of copyright law - because without those parts the texture wouldn't sell.

I have seen so many false "articles" and rules regarding copyright and trademark (including 'rosity's very own stance on trademark) all over the internet that it makes ones head spin.

The simplest thing to do is to read the actual laws on the government sites and understand that you are legally responsible for anything you put your name on, that includes downloads, products and websites. If you host a file and you are informed it violates copyrights or trademarks and you ignore it you are liable by law in the same manner that the actual violator is.

Those who insist on "registered" copyrights and trademarks leave themselves open for a lawsuit when a creator proves copyright or trademark as an in use. The law recognizes unregistered marks and rights and holds anyone hosting or distributing them as equally liable :-)