Attached Link: http://www.turbosquid.com/HTMLClient/Home/Index.cfm/stgAD/0401J446444286541

from Tom Knight, President of Imagination Works.

Before addressing the issues surrounding Amy, on behalf of Imagination Works (IW43D) I wish to personally and formally apologize to DAZ and Curious Labs for utilizing Posettes hand mesh in my model creation.

To the Poser community, please know that there I had no malicious intent to consciously deceive you, or DAZ. I can assure everyone that all questionable files have been replaced and that ALL IW models now contain only original IW mesh. Id like to thank Dan Farr, Chris Creek, and everyone at DAZ for their understanding in this matter. We very much appreciate their cooperation in working with us and their willingness to put this matter to rest and move on.

Im not trying to excuse my poor judgment, however, I would like to briefly explain how this incident occurred. I have been creating my own 3D models for the 3ds/max community for nearly a decade, and having just entered the Poser modeling arena last summer, found that it differs a great deal from what I have been accustomed to. The one thing I had trouble understanding (for example) is that people are able to create texture maps, or hair, or different features for a model, and then sell their wares in the marketplace. Essentially, people are creating a new and different model, (or a derivative thereof) from an existing model, which is not acceptable in the 3ds market IN ANY WAY. The problem with my using Posettes mesh for Amys hands stems from the misconception I had about selling 3D model derivatives in the Poser market. While I am QUITE CLEAR ON THIS ISSUE NOW, I thought that since Amy was created for Poser only, and Posette comes packaged with the Poser program, that it would be much the same as using the Poser hair or clothing that is provided with the Poser program (since everyone that owns a copy of Poser, also has a copy of Posette.) I didnt use Victorias hands, because she does not come in the Poser program. I wasnt using anything that all Poser users dont already have. I hope you followed that, or at least have a better understanding of how this all came about.

For those of you who have purchased Amy, please know that Amy is now available for download at Turbo Squid with the new mesh. We are aware of the collar problem and if you are having further problems, please contact knight@iw43d.com rather than posting in the forum, so that I may solve any problems youre having. I am sorry for the inconvenience this has caused all of you. Please know that we are making every attempt to compensate you for your trouble, and I think you will be pleased with what we have in mind. If you have any questions concerning anything else, please dont hesitate to contact pam@iw43d.com . Shes been a little swamped lately (you can well imagine) but will get back to you as soon as she possibly can.

I thank you all for your time, patience, and your understanding.

Sincerely,

Tom Knight
President,
Imagination Works

A very humble and sincere apology to some very special people whose efforts and kindness I will shall always be thankful for:
Turk ~ Beta Tester, Poser Guru, Friend (& Pams favorite STUD!)
Eric ~ Morph Master Extraordinaire & nicest person on planet earth.
Doug ~ Renderman Superhero & funniest guy we know (Except during The Simpsons.... No talking!)
Judith ~ Renderwoman, Texture Goddess, (& sales advisor)Cath ~ Texture Map Queen whose 3D model renders look like photographs.
Roy ~ Early Beta Tester. Remember us? We have something for you! : )
Phil ~ Lingerie Designer Extraordinaire & Poser Conversion Prince.
Pam ~ My Right Arm. Thanks for sticking around to clean up my mess.
Gene Flowers ~ Thanks for giving us the incentive to create so many Poser ready models.TO ALL who have supported my work and all you pioneering spirits brave enough to try out the new guys stuff! (without any knowledge of my error.)

AND TO ANTON ~
Thank you for looking out for your fellow artists, and for bringing this situation to our attention Better now than later and we thank you for clearing up a very bad mistake that could have been worse later. My sincere apologies to you as well, and much appreciation.

Interesting. I can follow the logic in this, too bad it was wrong :) Always best to check with original creators of anything to see if it's okay to utilize a portion of their product. It's courtesy at the very least, and covering your butt at most. Out of curiosity, does the EULA for Poser contain the restrictions on redistributing the included meshes, or are the restrictions only visible at DAZ? Tilandra

It sounds like a reasonable explanation to me, so I'm glad it was resolved amicably. I'm guessing that people can legally use Posette's hands in their Poser models if they refer to Posette's hand geometry via a PCF file (somehow), and they don't include Posette's hand geometry in a file for sale. But it's simpler to do as you did and redesign the hands "de novo", to add your own creative touch to the model.

Tom's letter does raise an interesting point, however. Because we all own Poser, we all have Posette -- the model is a default part of the software, not an add-on; it comes with the program and is pretty much part and parcel, just like dial settings or the code that runs the engine that does the render. So, following the logic, selling anything that requires Poser in order to be functional would be just as much in violation as using a default hand mesh. Not trying to open any can of worms, but just curious as to how and where people draw whatever line there may be. Just as a parallel, if I create something in Quark Xpress and then sell it, I've used pieces of the program to create that flyer or book or poster. Part of Quark is now written into the final document that goes to the printer and that I get to invoice. Same with an illustration I prepare in Photoshop -- part of the software code is now intrinsically written into the document that I'm selling to my client, and without Photoshop, the document may be useless. How is that different from using a default hand mesh to create a commercial character?

I for one applaud him for having the courage(if that's the right word) to stand up and admit in public that he/his company made a mistake. It's good this was made public as it might stop others from making the same mistake. Rob

funny you should ask that VS, I heard not long ago there is a clause in Microsofts license agreement that gives them sole ownership of anything you write or make using their software. Rob

VirtualSite, I think one way too look at is like this: When you sell your Photoshop document, you are not actually selling any Photoshop software. You are just saving it in Photoshop file format. The client has to have purchased Photoshop to view the file format. You haven't sold them any of the Photoshop program. When you sell a mesh that includes components of the other mesh, a person doesn't have to have purchased the original mesh to use it. For example, say I make an obj file using the components of Posette. One would not have to have Poser to use an obj file. You could load it directly into 3DMax, for example. In this case, you are selling part of the original code, which doesn't belong to you. That is why people use stuff like the Objaction Mover, to avoid the problem of selling stuff that doesn't belong to them. Does that help at all?

How odd, doesn't appear to have smallspace's name in his thank you list. Marque

Marque, My pen name is "Turk" :) -SMT (keeping a close watch on this whole thing.)

I'd rather stay in my lane than lay in my stain!

When you sell your Photoshop document, you are not actually selling any Photoshop software Actually, I am. Part of the PS software code is now built into the document so it can be read. Sure, I can read it in PhotoPaint or Canvas or any of a thousand other paint programs, but it's still a PS-identified document, using PS-identified code. And all a mesh is, is code as well. So I guess I still don't see the difference -- my PS-code written document is no different from a Poser-code mesh. I can take my PS-code written document and turn it into a Canvas-based tiff file and sell that to my client, but if I take my Poser-code document and sell it, it's wrong? Now this is making a distinction between materials that come with the default program, like Posette, and third-party generated meshes, like Vicky... but even that becomes a bit of a grey area, unless there's another program out there than can run Vicky with full functionality aside from Poser. As far as I can see (and I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong), the animation and joint system used by Poser is fairly unique. So, in essense, everything at DAZ, RunTime, Poserworld, any of the sites we all frequent, are all selling a small part of the Poser code. They have to; there's no way to get around it. So that's okay while this isn't? When you sell a mesh that includes components of the other mesh, a person doesn't have to have purchased the original mesh to use it But they would need Poser to run it with full functionality, right? Sure, you could export it as an obj file, but, again, how is that different from me saving my PS file as an exported jpeg? I'm really not trying to be dense here. It just doesn't seem to be any different.

I still need to get this better. If I sell a cr2 I'm okay because it only refers to the original .obj. Is that right?

You are absolutely correct in your explanation, hence our error. Tom's thinking was that this model was built for Poser and would only be used in Poser, however, where you've hit the nail on the head is that the obj can be exported, and this is where the violation comes in... without a doubt.

Actually, Smallspace is TURK! I used Smallspace's "ALIAS PEN NAME" rather than Smallspace... SO AGAIN, STEVEN M. TAYLOR, you are still my favorite STUD! NOTHING CAN CHANGE THAT!

Olga: If I sell a cr2 And see, in theory, you shouldn't be able to, because it's Poser-specific and using Poser code. This is exactly what I'm trying to understand. Let me emphasize again, I'm not trying to be obtuse or argumentative. But I honestly don't understand the distinction here.

Sorry if I'm not explaining this very well, VirtualSite. The code that saved into your Photoshop file is the file format, that tells other readers how to open and view the file. The code doesn't include the actual Photoshop program -- it doesn't let you paint, or draw, or any of that stuff. Your photoshop file is the end result of your work. It is the thing produced by the program, not the program itself. You are sharing your work. The mesh, on the other hand, is the thing itself. Don't know if I'm making sense or not. Consider a literature parallel. Say I write a deeply moving poem about my dog: Harlan The Hairy Is Friendly, Not Scary. and I save it in a Microsoft Word Document. I could have also written it in WordPerfect, or on a post-it note. Whatever. Now, I can sell this (assuming I found a sucker to buy it), because I am not actually selling any Microsoft Word code --it's the content that I'm selling, and it doesn't matter what the file format is. However, if someone else then open my Word document (or even rewrote-it by hand) and changed it to: Herbert The Hairy Is Friendly, Not Scary. It would not be OK for them to sell it, or even distribute it for free, because it contained content that I created. It wouldn't matter what file format it was in (Of course, I'd have to be able to prove that they didn't come up with this on their own, which I probably couldn't, but I hope you can see what I'm getting at). This kind of copyright violation can happen without malicious intent, just as in the case with Amy. I often see stories passed around on usenet attributed to "author unknown" when in reality, the author is quite well known. A lot of Dave Barry's stuff does rounds that way. Usually when the violation is pointed out to the person, they're mortified as they had no intention of doing wrong. I guess to see the difference, try asking "What is being sold (or distributed)?" In your case, it's the contents of the Photoshop file, the artwork you created. Although it is encoded by the Photoshop program, that is not the same as actually containing Photoshop program code. You aren't selling the tools used to create the artwork.

Yes, Olga. However, after our horrendous blunder, you may want to take this under advisement from a better known source. :/ Cheers! Pam

"I heard not long ago there is a clause in Microsofts license agreement that gives them sole ownership of anything you write or make using their software." I think it also mentions in the small print that Bill will also own your soul. :)

The simplest way to clear up the matter with regard to our error, is to say that IT IS NEVER ACCEPTABLE FOR AN ARTIST CREATING ORIGINAL GEOMETRY(MESH), TO MIX AND MATCH BODY PARTS WITH ANOTHER ARTIST'S ORIGINAL GEOMETRY(MESH). After all, hands are not an accessory, even if Posette is the default model for Poser. Does this help?

VirtualSite: Poser owns the right to the file format, but the agreement allows this to be distributed (and sold) in order to allow new props and creatures to be used with the program. PZ2, PZ3, CR2, and PP2 are all proprietary formats, and the means to encode or decode original material in this format are property of Curious Labs--but the materials encoded and decoded by this process are the property of the artist. This means that I can sell a PP2 or CR2 file that contains my original work but I CANNOT sell a program that allows people to encode or decode these files without the permission of Curious Labs. (The best example is that programs that can modify GIF images need to pay a fee to UNISYS to use their proprietary code to encode in GIF format. However, people creating these images, or viewing them do not--at least not yet.) c1rcle: I thought I read something along those lines in the Microsoft Basic agreement about 10 years ago. I'd like to believe that I just misinterpreted the legalese. If not, the agreement is insane++

I am so glad this has been cleared up. Yay! I can use my Amy now!!!! THis has been a good lesson for everyone involved it seems, so that can never be a bad thing. JDexter

Well, it hasn't been cleared up for me, DAZ is O.K. with this? While Supermodel Lori, who never had anything other than original mesh, and who doesn't follow the shape of any DAZ figure, is derivative? Maybe I shouldn't have been so easy... Anton's pictures indicated more was copied from the Posette than the hand mesh.

Pamola said: "The simplest way to clear up the matter with regard to our error, is to say that IT IS NEVER ACCEPTABLE FOR AN ARTIST CREATING ORIGINAL GEOMETRY(MESH), TO MIX AND MATCH BODY PARTS WITH ANOTHER ARTIST'S ORIGINAL GEOMETRY(MESH)." Even that's not an absolute. You can always negotiate with the author of the other mesh for permission to use it. How you split the revenues between the two authors is not germane, but the communication is essential. In most cases, crediting the author of the other mesh somewhere would also be good from the artistic integrity standpoint (not claiming as your work something that isn't), and also to keep people who discover the other mesh in your product from thinking you stole it. Perhaps just a line in the readme that said, "We've always thought Posette had the most beautiful hands imaginable, and rather than try to improve on perfection, we have received kind permission from DAZ/Curious Labs to use them on this character," would reassure people that everything was on the up and up, and would let the author of the beautiful hands get credit for his work. I get the feeling reading the forums that a lot of merchants are afraid to approach other merchants for permission to use their works, fearing that their request will be rejected without consideration. At CastleDev, we have been involved in many collaborative projects with other merchants, and so far, have found our inquires to be well and politely received. Lynn Grant Castle Development Group

Jim, How the frell is SML a dirivative? That's all custom geometry, yes? VS: I could load Posette into 3DS Max and use Biped to animate her and whatever else I wanted. And I could do it almost the exact same as Poser if I cared to. ~EA

Freakachu: Unisys' stranglehold on the .GIF file format is unusual among the software community, and only based on their questionable patent on the LZW compression algorithm it uses. There are tons of programs out there that generate uncompressed .PDF files and they don't owe Unisys or Adobe squat. Unisys' claim that even decoders should be licensed has most intellectual property attorneys wetting their trousers with laughter. It's moot: the LZW patent is about to expire. Curious would be hard pressed to patent their file formats considering Alias|WaveFront developed the .OBJ language and the underlying syntax these formats depend on. A file format is not a copyrightable entity, and probably not patentable either (but an algorithm is another matter -- and the PTO will be explaining themselves to Congress if they approve another BS 'one-click' patent).

Vickie & SML's mesh- she is derivative, Amy isn't? Jim is confused!

She is a derivative figure because DAZ said she is! I'm no lawyer, I will say how she was made though, she is 100% original mesh, the parts were fitted to Supermodel Vickies' shape, SMV uses Vickie's mesh, which is all modified at the vertex level to the new shape, every sticking polygon. So she is original mesh with an original shape, where Amy is (now) original mesh with what sure looks like the Posette's shape- look at Anton's pics! Like to get DAZ's comment on this, I just emailed them. Only thing I can think of is the Posette's licence (Poser's actually) isn't as restrictive as Vickie's.

FWIW: Curious Labs does indeed own the rights to their proprietary file formats. Just the same as discreet and alias wavefront, etc. This is why there is no way to export from poser to .max, or from 3ds to .pz3 . OTOH these companies all have made public domain formats which they allow folks to use freely. Hence, while Poser can't export to .max, they can export to .3ds, and while 3ds max will likely never export to .pz3, it can export to .obj. A similar idea is the .mp3 files that everyone's familiar with. .mp3 format is copyrighted and write protected. The folks who developed it do in fact charge for the right to be able to play it. Meaning, windows media player, creative sb live!, and intel's portable .mp3 players are all licensed to be allowed to make the format readable. Did I get that one right, Steve? *8^> Regards, Paul

Amy's just glad to be out of Jail...

I'd rather stay in my lane than lay in my stain!

She needs to get some plastic surgery done on her neck. Sorry, but for someone who has done so many years of modeling I can't believe he would release such a poor model. She looks like she's been hacked on. Marque

This reads as more of an excuse than an apology. It shows evidence of lack of maturity as well as lack of judgement. I will not knowingly buy anything from this "creator" or his company from any source or site. Carolly

Actually, no one "owns" a file format in this sense. It is perfectly legal to reverse engineer a file format and creat software that will read/write that data. How practical it is to do a clean room implementation is a totally different question.

Once again there are a lot of good questions being brought up in this thread. The main concern that I feel should be addressed is why, if the Amy body has been somewhat conformed to the P4 female did DAZ allow for it to be distributed? Lynn Grant addresses the answer to this question in post 22, above. As is typical in this business, DAZ reserves the right to provide specific exceptions to our own license agreement. (In fact, some of the first products we ever brokered were authorized this way, for example, Rob Whisenant's Merman, created from our Mermaid and MuscleMan products.) In the case with Amy, DAZ worked out terms of agreement with Imagination Works. I dont think that we need to elaborate publically on all of the considerations and conditions that went into our decision, but emphasize that it is our prerogative to do this. It all boiled down to our feeling that it was in the best interest to move things along.

We still retain the right to protect our interest in cases where Copyright or License Agreements are being infringed upon. Our license agreement still protects our products from being illegally distributed, whether in whole or in part, whether the products are in original form or in derivative form, no matter how many generations of derivation a person may take it.

Ultimately, creating a good human figure is a tremendous amount of work. DAZ has literally invested over a man-years time in modeling alone for Victoria and her associated morph targets. (Not to mention the costs associated with obtaining real life reference materials.) Chris Creek, DAZ partner and a modeller with over 10 years modelling experience, built Victoria from scratch this way because he knows that there are no legal shortcuts to this process.

To further clarify what derivative models are prohibited by the DAZ license agreement, I posted a message yesterday that addressed this issue. For those of you who havent had the opportunity to read it I have included it below. I appreciate your concerns, and expect this will answer your questions. If you have any questions regarding copyright on specific products, please contact DAZ directly, as it doesnt make sense to do this publically.

Thanks,
-Dan

---

Hello again. I mentioned in my last message that we would be adding more information to the DAZ website's FAQ section in order to clarify further what is prohibited under the DAZ license agreement. Hopefully this will help. If this does not clarify things completely then please feel free to contact us.

A few quick points that I would like to emphasize: When people use products to create derivatives that then compete against the originals, there is a problem. We welcome the development of products that enhance or diversify our products without circumventing the need to purchase those original products. (For example, we have traditionally allowed the free distribution of .cr2 files for products that won't be devalued by this distribution.) The problems arise when someone uses our work as an unfair advantage to compete with us. As a result we have prohibited these types of actions in the DAZ License Agreement.

Although the DAZ License Agreement only protects DAZ sold products, we suggest that these principles should be applied to everyones products, wherever they are available. If these priciples are not followed then the entire market will suffer. Original creators are penalized, while those selling self-standing derivative works are rewarded. Eventually this creates a disincentive to make original works from scratch. This forces the inovators and developers to look for alternative markets.

Once again, we wish to thank all those who have supported DAZ and the other organizations and individuals in this great community. This symbiosis would not exist without you.

Sincerley,
Dan Farr

P.S. In some cases we make special agreements with artists outside of these guidelines.

not to be an ass... but really, until this is 'taken to the mat' and people let companies say what they can do or cant do I guess the interpretation you supply will be the rule. there are simple too many gray areas in this whole thing. I can point at MANY clothing meshes that use 'dirivatives' to make them..but since you have to have the 'person' model for them to do any good, well thats ok. but if you dare take the same exact steps to create a person..then its not ok. standard practice in modeling is by image or 'stretching' a mesh over another. Want examples of this? I'd be happy to point you at them. In fact, if I were a betting man..I'd say that amy's body was made this way. It looks like a nurbs mesh was stretched over posette, and since it was too hard to make the hands, they were just tacked on. Someday, someone will take this to the point where decisions will be forced. The law and logic have never seen eye to eye on any occasion. examples? where does it say I can cut my girlfriend's neck and that of her fried, string blood all over the place, and get away with it? where does it say 20 cops can beat a man into submission, be videotaped and get away with it? where does it say you can whop off your husbands thing, sling it out the car window..and not go to jail? where does it say that my childhood neighbors could lose 10 acres of land just because they live out of state now? where does it say that jesus was guilty of any crime? tis a debate probably best left somewhere else, but as illustrated...until something is pressed, you never know where it'll go. If I was jim and the mesh was indeed original, I'd have fought and forced a ruling. I guess he's just nicer than me :P I anxiously await the day this is all actually put to the test. Someday it will be. BT

Well, while I agree that Daz should get compensated for their work... I don't think they get the final word on whether something can be "shaped like" Victoria. A body shape is an idea, an abstract. The mesh that forms it is a concrete thing. So while Daz can control their mesh they cannot (IMHO) control whether anyone makes a figure that can fit into Vickies clothing.

soulhuntre as a modeler and poser critter maker... if I were going to make a poser model, I guarantee I would make it so it wears one of the currently standard model's clothes and also would take accept the textures for said model. This, imho..was where dina failed. She should have been designed to be compatible. and Id most assuredly fight if someone said I couldnt do that..to the last dollar, to the last breath. however, I have no desire to make human models. I can only stand so many nude breasts and butts in the various galleries and as for the post about cl owning formats...thats another thing Id have to question. I HAVE a program that I have written that can make a full cr2 without poser EVER seeing it. While the model still needs poser to work, it does what poser does not..ie, proper joint setup upon creation. and CL, if you read this..I'd be fully, 100%, unquestionably willing to tell you how I did it so you can do it for poser5! I would not ask for compensation nor would I smack you with credits! If I can do it, for god's sake YOU CAN!!! the simple answer is make editable text files that read variables into the program. So if someone doesnt use standard naming practices, by simply editing the text file...they can change the rules. example I have text files that load 'standard' body part names. If the name is not standard, it flags this..if the user wants it to be standard...they edit the text file to include the name. I have text files that read 'expected' parentage. Example: It expects to see either the lCollar, rCollar, lShldr, rShlr as a child for the chest..if it finds it, it automatically makes it such. with these standard names and child relationships, you set 'expected' zones of rotation. ie..the fingers of the hand will most likely need spherical falloff zones to work properly. My program sees them as 'standard names', 'standard parantage' and thus uses the dimensions of that body part and its orientation as determined by the phi and body part vertex coordinates to determine how to apply the red and green spherical falloffs. really, its not that hard! ok, wayyyyy off topic... sorry bout that but as you get older (just had a birthday--36), you tend to ramble...lol BT

This brings a question to my mind... a lot of good points here...and I am in teh dark as the what started this (but I have on occasion emailed CL's about meshes I have seen at TS...there was a statue of posette, in a default poser pose and everything for $20, a 'dummy' of the p4 man for making clothes things like that...but I degress I have a laptop @ my site as well as a few charaacter in the making that I have 'stolen' the bones setup for...is that ok? They are not for sale or anything...but I do use other bones quite a bit in the set up room

♠Ω Poser eZine Ω♠
♠Ω Poser Free Stuff Ω♠
♠Ω My Homepage Ω♠

www.3rddimensiongraphics.net

 

BT, Where can I get that?

ya cant... its not beta tested nor does it have documentation of any kind I use it to make my critters, the last one required no rework at all..I just loaded it in my program, saved it, sent it to beta..it passed and is ready to go online whenever I get the time/urge to post more models BT

Ok...so ya tell me I can't get it, then yell me things that make me want it more. 8P

BT- I wasn't saying that CL will go after you for doing that. I was simply pointing out that legally they could. I don't think Steve Cooper's the sort to get upset about that sort of actions for a single user. If you sold the code, I'm not even sure he'd get upset. Of course, if you wrote a program to handle Poser .pz3 files, set it up as an integral part of 3ds max, and sold 10 million copies of 3ds max, I'm pretty sure you'd be talking to CL's legal department within a few minutes. ;) Of course, I'm not Steve Cooper, nor Curious Labs, so if you really want the official line, I'd recommend asking them. I'm sure they have enough attorneys to answer the question suitably without my input. And, yes, every company out there that sells .mp3 players pays a licensing fee. The biggest thorn in the sides of the recording industry for the last 3 years was that someone else developed it in fact. They had been trying to get their own standard together at the time, but couldn't... So they actually sued to have .mp3 players made illegal on the grounds of copyright infringement. In the history of copyright law, it was a pretty defining moment, and most folks agree that had they instead pushed their own format, instead of attacking .mp3, they would've stood to make hundreds of millions of dollars from the licenses alone. You know what they say about hindsight, though... Regards, Paul

Paul: Wrong, wrong, wrong. If a file format was a licensable entity, what's kept Apple, Microsoft, Adobe, Borland, JPEG, etc., from enforcing it? Exactly who are these .mp3 players paying licenses to, and why aren't software authors of jukeboxes required to pay? File conversion utilities would have been sued out of existence years ago. Freeware and shareware utilities exist that export Flash .swf files; what incentive would a developer have to create such freeware if they had to license the format? GIFconverter has to license the LZW compression algorithm, not the format itself. Compressed GIFs, TIFFs, and Acrobat PDFs all use that algorithm. Uncompressed GIFs, TIFFs and PDFs require NO license to create, and the plethora of Perl utilities in CPAN for exporting Acrobat files are testimony to this. I've read the Unisys licensing agreement, I know what I'm talking about. Not to attack you, but exactly what kind of law did you study?

I'm pretty sure you'd be talking to CL's legal department within a few minutes. ;)

Well, we might be talking... but I wouldn't be saying what they want to hear.

And, yes, every company out there that sells .mp3 players pays a licensing fee.

You might pay a fee to slap a official logo on it, or to use an algorithm... but that is radically different than having to pay for a file format. A subtle point perhaps but since I write code for some of my living and did it for many years one that was crucial to me several times.

Formats are simply not subject to license. Algorithms are.

Hi, The people who make .mp3 players are supposed to pay Fafenhoffer labs (or something like that :) since they hold a patent for the compression algorithm. Much as Unisys do for the LZW compression algorith that is used to compress .gif images. Which, if memory serves was created by Compuserve. Now anyone can go and lookup a patent and find out how it's done. That's one of the requirements of the patent process. Also, last time I looked it wasn't illegal to reverse engineer anything to see how it worked. You can even rebuild stuff using that knowledge. What you're not allowed to do is make a profit from it. I'm not sure where the law stands on giving away the information gained by reverse engineering either. But I doubt you're allowed to distribute a product created this way, for free, if it damages the salability of the original product. How this applies to Joe Bloggs making a drink that that tastes like Coke and then selling it is beyond me, however :) later jb

Neither File formats nor algorythms are subject to license. The only exeption is a patented algorythm, which is possible in the US, but (at least at th moment) not in the European Union or otherwhere. If anyone things that file formats or protocols aren't allowed to be re-engineered should talt to SUN (Star-Office) and SAMBA.ORG which have done thet to the MS-Office file formats and the CIFS-File transfer standard. And MS has lawyers to spend. :)

A ship in port is safe; but that is not what ships are built for.
Sail out to sea and do new things.
-"Amazing Grace" Hopper

Avatar image of me done by Chidori. 

I dont understand all the details here, but I am going to study them. These issues always crop up here but this thread is the best discussion of these sorts of problems that I have seen on Renderosity, unless I have missed something. We are dealing with a microcosm of the general issue of intellectual property rights that is becoming more and more important for all people, and not simply the Poser community. Some years ago the business and financial communities decided that the future would be an information age. Wealth would be in information and the challenge would be how to control and own information. So laws would have to be written and tested in courts to allow the capitalization of information. Practically anything can be thought of as information, even the DNA code. What drove the effort back then to start to build a society in which all information could be owned as a commodity and incorporated fully into the industrial/banking system was the emergence of the internet and new possibilities for sharing and cooperation among ordinary people. It was also the prospect of biotechnology and industrial genetics. In the field of biotechnology the scientist who leads the effort to develop vitamin A-rich Golden Rice wants to give the seeds free to poor rural people whose children come down with blindness from currently vitamin A deficient diets. But he cannot do this easily without permission from over 60 patent holders and holders of license-agreements who have a legal right to make a profit off of the use of bits of DNA code that the law has allowed them to claim, and off the use of techniques that other patent holders either developed or bought. This challenge is complicated further by the fact that companies can sell patents to each other and do not necessarily have to honor previous licenses, because of course the business community has lobbied for laws that give owners maximum control over their properties. All this has gotten very, very complicated, and terms regarding specific properties can be very fluid and change on a dime. Intellectual property issues are also complicated in the publishing industry where lobbyists have gotten laws that insure prosperity for lawyers. You can write a book in the United States but cannot necessarily sell it to be translated in Sweden or Kenya along with the illustrations. Maybe you bought the rights to use the illustrations in the US edition, but then the copyright holder insist that they wont let you use them again in foreign publications, or when you try to renew your copy write, etc. etc. So basically we have been seeing a huge aggressive agenda to capitalize just about everything, even information and even water!! This has gone so far that whether or not the principle of a public domain will survive is in real question. The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case regarding copy right renewals. The case is regarded as a first attempt to establish whether or not in the future there will be a public domain for intellectual property, or whether the push by lobbyists for laws to privatize all information will continue unchecked. This is a huge and enormously important historical issue, for there has always been a public domain throughout history, and people have cooperated to share information, and information has been modified, and in turn built on, etc. and this has been much of how human societies have progressed. Whether society can continue to progress equally well with a privatized information market is not at all clear. Personally, I am skeptical. It is bad enough that fair use practices have gotten more restrictive, but think, as a thought experiment, how difficult it would be if one had to get permission to use iambic pentameter or free verse, or certain phrases or expressions in writing. I am not suggesting that this will happen, but the example may help to visualize the general point. Anyway, I like the discussion in this thread and I think that these are important issues to discuss and think about even beyond the particular issues that concern the Poser community. So I am going to go back and better try to understand the particulars here. I hope that such discussions continue.

From dees, the president of the "my own room and my own PC" Who makes the rules ? Is it the government ? Is it a big company ? Is it the patent office ? 1. Is the pose, posing characteristic okay or not. 2. Or the close UVmapping system to implement a texture is okay or not. 3. Is a mesh judged by the number of poly's or the shape and the geometry of the model it self.... (and if it is ... how?) 4. More importantly....... who make these rules ? Is the rule totally approved by the patent office or not. This basic stuffs can AVOID judicial probs and furthermore piracy of someone's model.... and more importantly, TO PROTECT the chance and the right of new modelers. Personally, if a model have a very close physical characteristic, but if it's made from scratch and the person can prove it, (maybe show the other party on how they begin the modelling, so FULL documentation is necessary) it have full rights. Don't hate DAZ folks.......... they are concerning about their products,.... but don't take any accusation or messed up jokes about the other party too. If you need someone to throw a joke at........ try Me !!! dees

btw..... regarding Lynn Grant statement, I do not agree totally,... If a shape of a model or characteristic is somehow close,... perhaps : 1. we can sue some major T-shirt companies.... cause they have broken the law by copying someone else's work. 2. we can sue DAZ and the makers of Dina and everyother artist in the world cause they copy the work of God. (well if you believe one) 3. Applied to every other products and everyuthing that you have seen, everything is a copy. BUT in order to solve this matter, all we can do is to take a look at HOW MUCH work and HOW FAR someone has spent their energy for a finished product. More importantly, follows the guideline of the patent office (cause they do have the power to enforce the rule). I dun think anyone can make a law for others. Except the gathering of every parties and major representatives in a table to voice a decision. (yup the basic concept of democracy) dees