Derivative work, copyright.
Examples what you can NOT do :
- Cut up an existing figure, let's say the hip/waist, retexture it white, and sell as briefs.
- Cut up the chest-collars of en existing mesh, retexture it, and sell as a bra.
The only 6 meshes where this IS allowed are :
- The PoserPro Low and Medium male and female (that's 4 meshes)
- Poser11 Paul and Pauline (that's 2 meshes)
Some companies even prevent "shrinkwrapping" of new mesh to their figures in their EULA. So? => always check the documentation.
I had a little talk awhile back with Hivewire regarding the "Shrinkwrapping" issue and their figure Dawn. I honestly didn't know that some companies had a problem with that. After all, you're using new mesh, and what if all you want to do is get a close fit? That means that even if you create a new model, and model everything by hand, if you put a figure's foot in it and shrinkwrap it by just a itty bitty bit for a close fit, you could sued for violating copyright. That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of in my life.
Just for the record, according to the conversation I had with Hivewire, they're okay with Shrinkwrapping... as long as you don't abuse it.
I know Earl, it's a double edged sword.
On one side companies require the best quality and the closest fitting, and on the other hand they sometimes prevent shrinkwrapping.
=> That's why I added => Always check the EULA's and the documentation.
mcculleymike last edited by
As far as I know you cannot copyright any of the models that you have downloaded from Poser, or Daz Studio. You can make derivitave characters of your own, but you cannot copyright the model per se, BUT, you can copyright any images that you make, even of the standard models without any Morphs. So do not sell your character or even release it as part of a game, etc. without SmithMicro's permission.
eclark1849 last edited by
@vilters Yeah, but my caveat to what you said is, always ask, as it's not always mentioned in the EULA and documentation.
matb last edited by
Interesting conversation in light of my recent ridiculous slap on the wrist (and official warning) for showing images of a commercial node configuration.
Apparently, according to the mods here (and others), creators of materials even own the configuration of nodes that they use so it is "poor form" (at the very least) to show them to others for the purpose of learning. So all I need to do is create a material consisting of a mix node, a cycles material and a diffuse input node, and the rest of you are now screwed as you cannot create (or share) anything that incorporates that basic node configuration.
I would go so far as to say that DAZ's copyright in this area is untested in court. In every other area, "transformative" work is legal under the terms of fair use. The area of contention is how much of the original content can remain for it to be considered transformative. As for my node issue, another provision of the fair use clause of the digital millennium copyright act (if that applies in this case - anyone know?) is that parts of material can be shared for the purposes of education (which is what I did).
I think that many people here mistakenly believe that simply because someone STATES in an EULA, that something is copyrighted, that that statement is legally supported. Just to be silly, I can claim copyright on the word "mat" from my name, but it doesn't mean that any court in the land would uphold such a claim.
eclark1849 last edited by
@matb Wow, Matb, I think you missed the point entirely. It's one thing to sit down on your own and figure out how to do something. And if you want to show how you did it, that's fine. Bagginsbill and Ghostship do it all the time. Neither of them are selling their work, so they don't mind if you share them with others. Now, if you, on your own had sat down and figured out how to make a difficult material set up, and you decided to sell that material set up, then I came along and bought your material set up and posted it online, revealing your set up so no one had to buy your product, you'd feel cheated, and rightfully so. That's what people are saying.
James_in_3D last edited by
@eclark1849 Well said, Earl, and very clearly stated.
matb last edited by
@eclark1849 No I get the point, but almost nobody here is creating new ways of creating materials - they're all simply building upon designs that other people, mostly over at Blender, have already done. Had that person included their own maps that they photographed and drew, and I gave that map away, I would agree completely. But all this is, is a configuration of nodes. If this was kids' building blocks or Mecanno, and someone made them into an interesting structure, nobody would be arguing that other people cannot share photos of that structure.
I understand that the financial element adds a dimension, but how far does that go? Even drug companies only get to retain exclusive patents on their products for 8-10 years, if that, and they are literally creating new molecules from investments of hundreds of millions of dollars!
And again, I ask you, how much of a configuration CAN a creator lay exclusive claim to? Had I shown all but one node would that have been ok? Had I shown all the nodes but incremented all the values by one would THAT have been acceptable?
Because if your argument is that simply because a creator has commercialised a particular node configuration, any derivative of that would also been protected, all I need do is commercialise the basic output path, and everybody is screwed.
@matb You are, of course, STILL missing the POINT. No one has exclusive rights to the node configurations. I can sit down and make a set of node configurations right now for several materials and just give them away. I'll be using the same nodes as everyone else uses, commercial or otherwise. In that case, if I happen to hit upon the same configuration as a commercial vendor, that's just happenstance. What you seem to be completely IGNORING is the next to last sentence of my previous post. To just come right out and show what a commercial vendor has done is just plain theft.
shvrdavid last edited by shvrdavid
Ok, this needs to stop. First off, what is done is done.
The images were removed because the post stated that it was from a commercial product. Period...
Obviously there are only so many ways to do certain things in Poser's material room and all of us know that.
Give it a rest..
arcanebits last edited by
Thanks To everybody, I can see that this is a quite complex topic.
You cannot copyright the model per se its a complex situation.
What if I used Paul and Pauline, and made a Cartoon Series with them has a base characters, the series have 12 characters and NO ONE looks like paul or paulne, becase of the morphs and headworks made in poser. The cartoon its a success and Pixar wants them. I can copyright the FLAT images, but I cannot sell them the Mesh itself? I cannot Sell to pixar the copyright?
What about same scenario but with The PoserPro figures: The Low and Medium resolution? Can I sell the copyright then?
What about characters made from Scratch in Blender or Zbrush? But Rigged in Poser, Textured in Poser? And Animated in Poser? I may think I own everything or not?
I need to know the hard core diference betwen The Character per se VS The Images?
@arcanebits You can do whatever you want with characters you create. The characters aren't the figures, though. The figures are what you used to design the characters and give them their distinctive looks. What Pixar would be buying from you is the character and it's descriptive look. They have no interest in the mesh beyond that.
arcanebits last edited by
Thanks! Thats quite in short a perfect answer :)