Copyright Question
st...@vancouverislandrobotics.org
Hi All,
Not a warez question...
I started 3D modelling 10 years ago, but am still quite a newbie (strictly
a hobby for me). I just started it in earnest again this past year. I
was flipping through some of my old mags looking for ideas when a thought
hit me:
Is it violating copyright to reproduce a mesh as seen in print, or on
a website?
Many meshes that we see simply could not be well duplicated by guessing
at the method used to obtain the original, but some smaller low-poly
models are definately do-able.
The idea came while I was reading my printed catalog from ViewPoint dated
1993. There were some smaller really low-poly meshes in there that I feel
are perfect for my next project. But, could I use them for commercial
(I'm dreaming) work in the future?
Some of you do incredible work, so I'm asking you how you would feel if you
saw someone using a mesh that looked similar to yours, but they claimed to
have created it themselves (maybe listing you as an inspiration). How many
ways are there to model a low-poly bunny rabbit or seagull anyway?
For me, this is just an exercise to see if I have the basic modelling skills
down enough to create what I see, but others out there might be wondering
the same question.
TIA
Steve
Allan
doing the modeling. you are not using their base mesh and adding or altering
it. As for buildings and such I am not sure if they can be (c)ed, unless of
course you are doing a MacDonald's or something. I think that you should be
ok in trying to duplicate meshes. Credit to the idea would also be good as
well.
<st...@VancouverIslandRobotics.org> wrote in message
news:10291890...@news.islandnet.com...
Martin Rowley
"derivative work" - or maybe under "reverse engineering". As
long as the model is "original" (original composition
created by you - not someone else's work you modified) I
think you're ok. You can always modify the mesh is some
small (but noticeable) way then it's work of a derivative
nature.
Keep in mind I ain't a lawyer - I don't even play one on TV
- so in a case where you might get sued big time - consult a
real lawyer.
http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/distance.htm
Martin
Jordan Wraith
it's "derivative" works in a scene or animation. It when you try to
sell the mesh itself that they get into restrictions.
Basically, if you intend to release your work as a commercial or
something like that, then you should be okay. If you are intending to
sell the meshes themslves, the you may run into some trouble for
derivative works. Given that you're modeling from catalog photos, I
doubt you need to worry about it, as they generally mean that you took
their model and modified it slightly before selling it. I hope this is
clear.
Jordan
On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 21:54:32 -0000, st...@VancouverIslandRobotics.org
wrote:
art guerrilla
*arrrrggggghhhh*
(massive snipping of copyright myths
and wishful thinking)
*i* am *not* a lawyer, but i *have* done
some amount of reading on the subject,
have consulted a lawyer on copyright/
trademark issues, and keep an abiding
interest in following copyright/trademark
legal cases...
(as a Gross simplification, i am going to
lump copyrights/trademarks together, as
they have many similar legal properties,
*but* they are different in intent and
practice...)
firstly, simply because the copyright
laws are often ignored, does NOT mean
they are not enforceable... (e.g. just
because 90% of us speed on the
highways, do you think if you ask john q.
law, 'um, is it okay if i speed?', that they are going to say 'um, okay,sure'
? ? ? )
secondly, *SUPPOSEDLY* 'we' (ie the
little peeps) have rights of 'fair use' to any
and all copyrights/trademarks...
this includes a fairly narrow list of uses
that includes commentary/criticism (ie
you are writing a movie or book review,
and the accompanying graphics includes
a trademarked logo of the title, or a 'brief'
quotation from the work, or a picture
from the work, etc), news coverage,
and parody/satire...
now, i say *SUPPOSEDLY*, because
korporate piggies with lawyers sitting
around on retainer with nothing better
to do, have circumscribed, battered, and
legally harassed the little peeps who
try and exercise these theoretical rights...
thirdly, just because people *DO* make
illegal use of copyrighted/trademarked
images/logos/etc, *AND* 'get away with
it', does NOT mean that they are not
liable to be sued if the owner finds out
and is so inclined to sue...
there ARE numerous cases of -mostly-
big korporate piggies suing little teeny
nobodies who have traduced upon their
precious fucking copyrights/trademarks...
this is true whether there is an intent or
actual money made on the 'pirating' of the
copyright, OR NOT ! ! !
LET ME REPEAT, WHETHER YOU
MAKE ONE PENNY OR NOT, WHETHER
YOU INTENDED TO MAKE MONEY OR
NOT, IS NOT, REPEAT *NOT* A LEGAL
DEFENSE OR EXCEPTION TO USING
SOMEONE'S COPYRIGHTED/TRADE
MARKED WORKS...
NOW, the truth is, if you ARE making
money by outright pirating, then 'they'
ARE more likely to go after you, but they
have the same right to go after those
who aren't making money...
one famous case a number of years ago
was when disney sued a small nursery
school/daycare center who had painted
an image of donald duck and/or mickey
on their wall... they lost... people who
do that will ALL LOSE, IF the company
decides to make an issue of it...
(and, oh -by the way- they WILL make
an issue of it, because if they don't make
all due diligent efforts to protect their
-specifically- trademarks, they *can*
become public domain by sheer dint of
repeated public usage, e.g. 'kleenex',
'cellophane', etc...)
further, the time limits for copyrights/
trademarks have been consistently
expanded to meet the needs of korporate
piggies in general, and dizzy world in
particular... it started out that our
founding fathers made them last for 14
years, and is now to the point where it
is the life of the artist (*snort* which is
usually *NOT* the artist, but a 'work for
hire' which the *korporation* owns), plus
75 years (or 95 years, i think, if it is a
korporation and not an individual artist
who owns the copyright)...
some of these extensions were snuck
onto the hind end of various laws to
benefit disney when their copyrights/
trademarks on donald duck/mickey/
pluto/etc were *just* about to start
running out this year...
(how con-veeeeeen-yant ! )
also, some companys are nazis about
it (ie disney), and some companys don't
give a poop (particularly concerning 'fan'
recreations, etc); but THEY decide that,
not you...
there IS legitimate reason for SOME
copyright/trademark protections and
time limits for the benefit of the ORIGINAL
artists; but overall, mickey/minnie rat,
barney, popeye, etc, etc, etc are 'valuable'
as korporate assets because WE (ie
society/culture) MAKE them popular/
valuable... in a VERY real sense, they
belong to US, WE made them the
success they are, and WE deserve to
use their images as additional artistic
expression and cultural heritage (such
as it is)...
bottom line: copyright/trademark law is
being extended/modified for the benefit
of big korporate piggies like disney, NOT
for the benefit of starving artists putting
their blood, sweat and tears into their
creations...
not that individual starving artists don't
get some protection under those same
laws (assuming they retain the rights to
their works), but they can not afford to
have platoons of legal eagles swooping
down on people who transgress your
rights, like the big korporations can...
art guerrilla
eof
Jordan Wraith
wrote:
>
>*arrrrggggghhhh*
>(massive snipping of copyright myths
>and wishful thinking)
>
>*i* am *not* a lawyer, but i *have* done
>some amount of reading on the subject,
>have consulted a lawyer on copyright/
>trademark issues, and keep an abiding
>interest in following copyright/trademark
>legal cases...
SNIP
Hey, did you even read the question? It wasn't "can I use their model
in my work."
Thew question our fellow modeler asked was "Will I violate somone
else's copyright laws by copying their model."
THE SIMPLE ANSWER IS NO
You couldn't give a... No, you know thaqt long winded, "I obviously
wanted to show what a smart guy I am" response showed a lack of
understandindg of copyrights as it applies to model.
I humbly direct you to the EULA for POSER for your first clue,
pinhead, which cover the "Derivative works" that we all gave in our
answer. Next, I'll direct you to DataPoint labs faq concerneing their
definition of derivative works, which DOES NOT INCLUDE MAKING A MODEL
OF THE SAME TYPE, so long asyour model was started from scratch and
wasn't just a modifiaction on you work.
Jesus, you weren't even close on this on, and all you did was confuse
the issue. To be clear, POSER sells their models for the explicit
purpose of the being used commercially. No one is violating their
copyright by making money of an animation that uses poser models. They
will also not sue anyone for selling a model that kind of looks like
their model if it was made from scratch. Still with me stupid? Good.
You will only get in trouble if you try to sell their model, or a
modified version of their model, a "derivative work"
Geez, that is what the rest of us knew, but one shmuck just has to pop
off with nonsense that doesn't apply just so he can feel smart. To be
fair, all of that is true when it come to print and media. It even
applies to the friggn' software we make the models on, but it does NOT
apply to the models. WHY? Because You can't sue me for selling a bird
model just because you also have a bird model. Now, if I were selling
YOUR model and calling it my own, then fire at me with both lawyer
buddy.
READ NEXT TIME.
oh yeah YOU SO STUPID!
Jordan
art guerrilla
the wrath of wraith -
>Hey, did you even read the question? It wasn't "can I use their model
>in my work."
heh, did you even read the answer ? ? ?
copying/making/reproducing/recreating/
ANYTHING where you take Someone
Elses Copyrighted/Trademarked work and
make 'your version' (UNLESS for the
aforementioned 'fair uses'), is NOT
permitted by copyright/trademark LAW,
FUCKING PERIOD, imbecile...
sure, you can make your own version of
common/public domain 'things' like
a stethescope, various cars, planes, etc;
but you can NOT -*technically*, *legally*-
make your own models of copyrighted/
trademarked 'things' like popular cartoon
characters, specific people, stuff like the
batmobile, star trek hardware, etc, snitwit..
i don't care if you go in a closet, turn out
the light, and recreate said copyrighted
model purely for your entertainment and
edification, then delete the model before
you come out of the closet; YOU ARE
STILL TECHNICALLY VIOLATING THE
COPYRIGHT/TRADEMARK LAW, sir...
REGARDLESS of whether you are
ACTUALLY going to be tracked down and
warned/prosecuted for such trivial usage
is another matter; but you ARE violating
the law and are liable to be sued if the
copyright holders so choose, wiener...
i said absolutely NOTHING about
company's like poser, etc who sell what
amounts to clipart for various limited and
unlimited licensing schemes, nutless...
i WAS responding to the general disinfo
and misinformation that WAS being
promulgated by professionals (?) who
*SHOULD* know better, snotwaddle...
>Thew question our fellow modeler asked was "Will I violate somone
>else's copyright laws by copying their model."
>THE SIMPLE ANSWER IS NO
NO, my ignorant fiend, the answer is
"YES", you WILL be in technical violation;
IF it is something that stays in your
computer room and never sees the light
of day, then OBVIOUSLY the pertinent
owners of the copyright/trademark will
never notice your transgression,...
>You couldn't give a... No, you know thaqt long winded, "I obviously
>wanted to show what a smart guy I am" response showed a lack of
>understandindg of copyrights as it applies to model.
no, YOU expose your ignorance of
copyright/trademark laws, as well as the
trends in corporate control of such
legal remedies...
what various companies CHOOSE to do
with their licensing schemes for what they
sell (or give away) is their bidness; it has
NOTHING to do with what is the law (not
to mention that there is no body of
copyright law which 'applies to models'
specifically, piehole)...
>I humbly direct you to the EULA for POSER for your first clue,
>pinhead, which cover the "Derivative works" that we all gave in our
>answer.
great, you are talking about a Private
Contract/Licensing agreement between
an individual and a company, NOT WHAT
copyright law IS, mr. playing at lawyer...
>Next, I'll direct you to DataPoint labs faq concerneing their
>definition of derivative works, which DOES NOT INCLUDE MAKING A MODEL
>OF THE SAME TYPE, so long asyour model was started from scratch and
>wasn't just a modifiaction on you work.
again, try to follow here, what you are
citing is a PRIVATE Contract/Licensing
Agreement; what these companies choose
to allow/disallow in their terms of use is
COMPLETELY up to them; it has nothing
to do with the protections normally
conferred on all copyrighted/trademarked
works...
>Jesus, you weren't even close on this on, and all you did was confuse
>the issue. To be clear, POSER sells their models for the explicit
>purpose of the being used commercially.
again, i said NOTHING about that; MANY
of the posts in response were prepetuating
myths about copyright/trademark which
may (OR may not) be 'okay' according to
the particular CONTRACTS/LICENSING
AGREEMENTS of the companys selling
clipart, but have NOTHING TO DO with
copyright/trademark law per se, jerkoff...
>No one is violating their
>copyright by making money of an animation that uses poser models.
*yawn* didn't say they did, did i, rave on,
poseur boyeee...
>They
>will also not sue anyone for selling a model that kind of looks like
>their model if it was made from scratch.
ha ha ha
that is pretty good weasel wording, 'roid
boyee, 'kind of' ?, what does that mean...
ho ho ho
>Still with me stupid? Good.
with you? i've been way ahead since
the first posting, but you seem insistent
on parading your ignorance repeatedly...
>You will only get in trouble if you try to sell their model, or a
>modified version of their model, a "derivative work"
again, did not even address that particular
issue of -essentially- stealing the models
to resell as your own collection of clipart,
dimbulbus...
>Geez, that is what the rest of us knew, but one shmuck just has to pop
>off with nonsense that doesn't apply just so he can feel smart. To be
>fair, all of that is true when it come to print and media.
Stop IT, YOU are spreading more disinfo,
there ARE NO 'special' laws for copyright/
trademark issues of 3D models, ASS
HOLE ! ! !
THERE ARE *whatever* PRIVATE
Contracts/Licensing Agreements which
MAY (or MAY NOT) carve out various
limited and unlimited usages of their
clipart, consult your local listings, your
mileage may vary, not including dealer
prep, wormtongue...
>It even
>applies to the friggn' software we make the models on, but it does NOT
>apply to the models. WHY? Because You can't sue me for selling a bird
>model just because you also have a bird model.
*sigh* pay attention, bit brain, i did NOT
say otherwise, I was talking about the
general misinformation that was being
bandied about regarding the Expression
of COPYRIGHTED/TRADEMARKED
works...
a bird is a bird is a bird, ANYONE can
model ANY type of bird they want,
EXCEPT -still following?- for -say- tweety
bird, or big bird, OR a recreation of
SOMEONE else's specific Expression of
a bird, ie an audobon painting, or a
warhol print, or a roger tory peterson
pose/painting...
audobon did not create his paintings to
sell to other artists as clipart to be used
in their own works, there was no specific
PRIVATE Contract/Licensing Agreement
which would spell out his restrictions,
terms of use, etc...
poser/etc do exactly that...
still following ? ? ?
Now, if I were selling
>YOUR model and calling it my own, then fire at me with both lawyer
>buddy.
again, did not address that particular
issue; i WAS addressing the all too
common ignorance -*ahem* got mirror?-
of copyright/trademark LAW ( *NOT*
CONTRACT LAW, GOT IT, LEGAL
EAGLE? ? ? DO YOU FUCKING KNOW
THE DIFFERENCE ? ? ? )
>READ NEXT TIME.
>oh yeah YOU SO STUPID!
>Jordan
and what a manly man you are for being
both so vicious and vociferously wrong
on almost all counts in regard to my
smarting off...
have a nice day, shithead...
art guerrilla
eof
Jordan Wraith
(IE Animals, vehicles, low mesh people) from a catalog of models, not
a cartoon character, mascot, movie character, or real person. My
original statement still stands. Read the question again. You answer
only confuses the issue
Nice potty mouth BTW
Jordan
Martin Rowley
Just last week-end I was in a "Big Dog" store and they were
selling a number of tee shirts with art work similar to
several different artists. One was a parody of the South
Park cartoon. The kids all had cartoon dog heads and they
were standing in line (waiting for the bus, I assume). The
caption read - "On No! They neutered Kenny!"
But you're right (or so I think) - original works would be
considered copyrighted. But models of everyday things would
probably not be as long as such an object isn't easily
identifiable as a copyrighted shape - like a Coke Cola
bottle. A standard generic long neck beer bottle on the
other hand would be different.
Martin
st...@vancouverislandrobotics.org
I did get my answer in there though, so thanks to everyone who either posted
or E-mailed me directly. For the record (if anyone's keeping score) I plan
to go ahead and see if I can duplicate some of the models I see in this
particular catalog, and others I've seen on the net or in mags. I _will_
definitely give credit where credit is due.
Again, I don't do commercial work, this is strictly a hobby. I only added
the part about commercial for others who might be doing something similar.
I understand the part about duplicating copyrighted items, like perhaps
the Golden Arches, the Microsoft Logo, or something like that, and the point
is well taken.
Thanx again, I hope to post more of my attempts soon.
BTW, Here's a snippet I found on a Google query that might answer some of
the "derivative work" questions...
>Question: I'm an architect, and I have published a drawing showing a novel
>bridge approach that will relieve traffic congestion. Another architect
>used my drawing to actually design a bridge. Can I sue?
>
>Answer: No. The design itself might be patentable, but it is not
>copyrightable. Copyright law covers only expressions, not ideas. So we
>can't copyright algorithms, or can openers, or mathematical formulas, or
>physical structures. You could sue for copyright infringement if someone
>reproduced your drawing, but only patent law can protect the design.
which seems to say that it would be okay, but then another part of the same
page has this one:
>Question: Can I make a sculpture based on a photograph without permission?
>
>Answer: No. The sculpture would be a derivative work. In one famous case,
>artists Jeff Koons made a sculpture based on a photograph of a group of
>puppies and argued that the sculpture was a "fair use." See Rogers v. Koons,
>960 F.2d 301 (2d Cir 1992). The court found that the sculpture was not a
>fair use, in part because the sculpture damaged the photographer's potential
>market for derivative works. The photographer might want to grant a license
>to another sculptor to make a new work based on the photograph. If so, the
>existence of Koons' sculpture could reduce the potential market available
>to that licensee and thereby reduce the value of the photographer's
>copyrights.
which seems to indicate no, as we're talking about a digital sculpture
based on basically a photograph...
>To decide whether a use is "fair use" or not, courts consider:
>
>1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of
>a commercial nature or is for nonprofit education purposes;
For me, I believe this would be classified as nonprofit and educational...
Steve
These snippets came from: http://www.chillingeffects.org/derivative
Martin Rowley
tree that was part of some golf course. This tree was sort
of a famous one - Ansel Adams had done photos of it. Well,
(if I remember the story right) a Japanese business concern
bought up the golf course and since the silhouette of this
tree was part of the course's logo they wanted to make the
tree copyrighted. You couldn't take a photo of the tree and
publish it. I know the action caused a lot of controversy
and really don't know how it finaly ended up - but it was
interesing.
Martin
Matthew Taylor
news:10291890...@news.islandnet.com...
>
> Hi All,
>
>
> a hobby for me). I just started it in earnest again this past year. I
> was flipping through some of my old mags looking for ideas when a thought
> hit me:
>
> Is it violating copyright to reproduce a mesh as seen in print, or on
> a website?
>
I would have thought that to a large extent it would depend on what coulntry
you might be reproducing the mesh in & in what country the original mesh was
produced / published.
Matthew