Copyright infringement?

[Lyrra Madril]

Well from the flat out standards of copyright .. going by the standard EULA at most of the sites, any render created using content is the creators to do what they like with it. The actual 3d models and textures are non distributable EXCEPT if the distributor has a license to do so (the gaming licenses at DAZ, the extended license at Rendo) and in such cases are specifically meant to be distributed as part of something like a videogame.

So technically these people aren't doing anything illegal, just kind of morally dubious (the plain load and render images). An artist with an iota of pride in their work would at least adjust the shaders, maybe make an interesting composition, using something better than the murky default lighting. It is obvious to me at least that most of these are rendered in DS with unaltered poser shaders so they come out plasticcky and with no bump maps. It takes about 10 seconds to fix that, if you know how.

I've seen some very beautifully done poser based clipart over the years and the ones that stand out to me are the sets where the maker has obviously spent a lot of time setting up the character/props and making a unique image. And yes, Lady Little Fox pretty much owns this market *lol*

For the curious try googling poser tube, poser scrap and poser clipart you can also add keywords like store, fairy or witch.

LM

 

[LisaB]

Interesting Terms of Use General Stock TOU

 

[Pendraia]

It doesn't matter that his TOU are "non-commerical only" because HIS use is circumventing the need to purchase the product which are in the terms of our EULA and also the EULA from other 3D stores.

When there are a bunch of products used to create a background image like in the cyclorama sets it's within the TOU because you can't extract just one thing and "rearrange it" for your own purposes. You're stuck with what you get.

Thanks for posting Lisa...this confirms what I was thinking. IIRC from Daz's Eulas it actually says something about using it in such a way that it competes with the product, which is why it has to have more than one item in the render.

 

[Pendraia]

Interesting Terms of Use General Stock TOU

Just reading that it makes it too complicated to actually use it...so much to remember to do! I don't download freebies that have restrictions like that as it makes it too hard to use and you have to be so careful when you use it.

 

[LisaB]

His TOU may be why he gets away with this. Though DA policies seem to omit "renders" as acceptable fr stock images. Will have to look more later.

It cracks me up that he's so upset about thieves and so adamant about giving him credit for his work, yet he doesn't give the artists who made the work he's using any credit at all. It would be great for everyone if he did. Think of how many people might be exposed to the world of Poser and Daz Studio if he did what he's asking others to do.

 

[Mythocentric]

Good to hear from you Lisa!

While I can appreciate that those users who don't employ 3D programs may find his images attractive that is still no excuse for his (and others like him) to exploit what they percieve as a grey area for their own ends. Sad to say that is the direction DeviantArt has moved in since it adapted more of a 'Facebook' approach. Equally dA's response to complaints of copyright theft leaves a lot to be desired. That is indeed the reason I will not be renewing my Core membership with the distinct possibility that I will be withdrawing my support from the site altogether! Nor does it help that my images immediately appear on Googles (who I am led to believe are the current owners of dA!) image search giving rise to the possibility of even further theft. I wish you well and every support in curbing those people whose attitude is less than honest when it comes to other peoples property!

 

[eclark1894]

His TOU may be why he gets away with this. Though DA policies seem to omit "renders" as acceptable fr stock images. Will have to look more later.

It cracks me up that he's so upset about thieves and so adamant about giving him credit for his work, yet he doesn't give the artists who made the work he's using any credit at all. It would be great for everyone if he did. Think of how many people might be exposed to the world of Poser and Daz Studio if he did what he's asking others to do.

My guess is that he covers himself with this statement: "All of my stock is produced/rendered using Poser Models and Textures ".

You know, it's never occurred to me to use renders of models as background scenes.

 

[Wonderland]

I contacted Daz about this the other day because many of their products are also being sold like that and Richard Hazeltine said it was NOT copyright infringement because it is a render.It still makes no sense to me that a straight render without any changes or background can be sold like that (and this is from Poserfan who does SELL some for COMMERCIAL use), but oh well... I did post on one of their sites the link to the product here. All the compliments to the guy were irritating me...

 

[eclark1894]

I contacted Daz about this the other day because many of their products are also being sold like that and Richard Hazeltine said it was NOT copyright infringement because it is a render.It still makes no sense to me that a straight render without any changes or background can be sold like that (and this is from Poserfan who does SELL some for COMMERCIAL use), but oh well... I did post on one of their sites the link to the product here. All the compliments to the guy were irritating me...

Thinking it over though, I have to agree with Richard. Unless you're going to start putting restrictions on what people do with the renders they make, even for commercials purposes. It never occurred to me to do that, but movies and plays use backdrops all the time. Look at old Westerns. Most of the town is a painted backdrop. Star Trek-TOS alien landscape and planets are all backdrops. What's the difference?

 

[Hornet3d]

I think most the background type products are renders using multiple items and I can see that they may be of use to certain users. I have always wondered why anyone would buy some of the backgrounds as it would be easier, and cheaper to create your own with very little effort but then again I have used commercial backdrops when I have been in a hurry or the render is a work in progress. My definition of a background would be exactly that, the combination of multiple items, where I have difficulty is if the render is of a single tree or plant for while the object itself cannot be extracted it would be easy to use as a layer in Photoshop or the like and thus could replace/compete with the product in question. Legally it is a grey area but it does seem morally wrong to use another persons work and either claim it for your own or imply that by not crediting the original creator. It would also seem a strange morality that you want to impose conditions on the use of 'their' product when the creator has already flaunted many of those some conditions in creating the item.

The other problem is that morality, like art, is very personal and very subjective, so what I believe to be immoral may be quite acceptable to another. It is as shame though when the moral high ground is eroded because I believe we all loose in the end.

 

[Hornet3d]

Good to hear from you Lisa!

While I can appreciate that those users who don't employ 3D programs may find his images attractive that is still no excuse for his (and others like him) to exploit what they percieve as a grey area for their own ends. Sad to say that is the direction DeviantArt has moved in since it adapted more of a 'Facebook' approach. Equally dA's response to complaints of copyright theft leaves a lot to be desired. That is indeed the reason I will not be renewing my Core membership with the distinct possibility that I will be withdrawing my support from the site altogether! Nor does it help that my images immediately appear on Googles (who I am led to believe are the current owners of dA!) image search giving rise to the possibility of even further theft. I wish you well and every support in curbing those people whose attitude is less than honest when it comes to other peoples property!

I can't comment on the DeviantArt aspects as my only interest was a year or so ago when both RDNA and Rendo galleries were lost to me for different reasons. My interest was fleeting as I never made it past the terms and conditions, many of which decided could be used in a manner I would not approve of. Other than that exception, I agree with your thoughts and concerns and admire your intention to stand up for your principles.

 

[Pendraia]

Thinking it over though, I have to agree with Richard. Unless you're going to start putting restrictions on what people do with the renders they make, even for commercials purposes. It never occurred to me to do that, but movies and plays use backdrops all the time. Look at old Westerns. Most of the town is a painted backdrop. Star Trek-TOS alien landscape and planets are all backdrops. What's the difference?

The difference here is that the backdrops were most likely handpainted specifically for the movie by people the company paid money to and the people concerned were given credit. Also it's a very different situation as in the case we're talking about the person simply loaded a single object and rendered from the look of the images at DA. This creates a product that is in direct competition with product. There is normally a clause in most Eulas specifically stating this isn't allowed.

If they had loaded multiple products and created a backdrop that way it isn't an issue.

 

[eclark1894]

The difference here is that the backdrops were most likely handpainted specifically for the movie by people the company paid money to and the people concerned were given credit. Also it's a very different situation as in the case we're talking about the person simply loaded a single object and rendered from the look of the images at DA. This creates a product that is in direct competition with product. There is normally a clause in most Eulas specifically stating this isn't allowed.

If they had loaded multiple products and created a backdrop that way it isn't an issue.

I see what you're saying, but still not sure I completely agree. See, you're making the assumption that whoever buys his backdrops are going to be using Poser as well, in which case I see your point. But what if they're using Photoshop or GIMP? And while I do understand the "lost sale" aspect, I also see it as a potential future sale. I used to print my own newspaper for a while. I would write all the articles, take all the pictures, but i took it to a printing shop to have it printed. I realized after a while where my "printer" was having them printed up and eventually, I went around him and started negotiating directly with the real printer and lowered my overhead.

 

[Pendraia]

It still is against the Eula if it's in Direct competition with the original product at least that's my understanding of it.

 

[eclark1894]

It still is against the Eula if it's in Direct competition with the original product at least that's my understanding of it.

Gray area then. If his customers aren't using Poser how is it direct competition?

Although, I do agree that credit should be given.

 

[Hornet3d]

Gray area then. If his customers aren't using Poser how is it direct competition?

Although, I do agree that credit should be given.

I would agree it is a grey area, as you suggest products like this allow the products to be used by 2d artists without the use of Poser. I am however left with an uneasy feeling when anyone takes another's work, renders it unchanged and offers it to others. To then have the Chutzpah to apply your conditions when you have ignored that of the original artist leaves me quite annoyed.

 

[Darryl]

This is a very interesting topic. There seems to be some judgements here on value added. It's a slippery slope. As you know many 3d modelers, texture artists, traditional artists etc, already believe Poser users are passing off somebody else's work as their own. A Daz model in Aeon Soul clothing placed in a Stonemason set can be confusing as to who actually created those wonderful curves, textures and sexy poses. The viewer many times doesn't know from Poser and think it was all hand crafted by the artist. Some users credit every asset in the comments section some don't. Those credits almost never appear in the actual image alongside the artist's signature. The ethics of crediting or not crediting every asset in a 2d render seems unclear.

As a user of clip art from various vendors in various programs I many times need an image that can be easily separated from the background. I'll use it along with other clip art to create a final composition. Hard shadows can also be a problem as the various pieces I'm integrating would not be lit from the same direction. Give me relatively flat, background free images and I'm happy, depending on the image I'm trying to create. There is a certain value added in its simplicity.

I was under the impression (correct me if I'm wrong) that Poser vendors are selling 3D assets not 2D renders. In which case I don't see where there is any competition to the vendor. Assuming the artist bought the original item, it's a made sale not a lost one. If there are too many restrictions placed on the 2D output of Poser assets it limits the value of the product and I'm rethinking the purchase altogether.

There appears to be a certain shadyness in not listing the origin of the assets used while offering up a rather onerous TOU but I wonder if the artist is as far removed from the typical Poser user as is being implied.

 

[Hornet3d]

This is a very interesting topic. There seems to be some judgements here on value added. It's a slippery slope. As you know many 3d modelers, texture artists, traditional artists etc, already believe Poser users are passing off somebody else's work as their own. A Daz model in Aeon Soul clothing placed in a Stonemason set can be confusing as to who actually created those wonderful curves, textures and sexy poses. The viewer many times doesn't know from Poser and think it was all hand crafted by the artist. Some users credit every asset in the comments section some don't. Those credits almost never appear in the actual image alongside the artist's signature. The ethics of crediting or not crediting every asset in a 2d render seems unclear.

As a user of clip art from various vendors in various programs I many times need an image that can be easily separated from the background. I'll use it along with other clip art to create a final composition. Hard shadows can also be a problem as the various pieces I'm integrating would not be lit from the same direction. Give me relatively flat, background free images and I'm happy, depending on the image I'm trying to create. There is a certain value added in its simplicity.

I was under the impression (correct me if I'm wrong) that Poser vendors are selling 3D assets not 2D renders. In which case I don't see where there is any competition to the vendor. Assuming the artist bought the original item, it's a made sale not a lost one. If there are too many restrictions placed on the 2D output of Poser assets it limits the value of the product and I'm rethinking the purchase altogether.

There appears to be a certain shadyness in not listing the origin of the assets used while offering up a rather onerous TOU but I wonder if the artist is as far removed from the typical Poser user as is being implied.

I can see your point but it rather extends the envelope into general renders, When I upload one of my renders I rarely list the assets used and never give a full list but, and to me this is a big but, I am uploading the renders for comment/criticism and not inviting anyone to use it as a background (or in any other way for that matter). Furthermore, if I someone comments on a particular part of one of my renders I always make it clear who created it and whether I have used it 'as is' or have modified it. In the past, when I had a Rendo gallery, I did use the link they provided to the products as I felt it helped both the vendor (or not if it was a particularly bad render) and other possible purchaser/users of the product. I have long since ceased to have a gallery there due to unrelated issues. The reason I do not list all the content used is that, for some of my renders this would be a very long list, I suppose I could include a 'file print' from inside Poser but it would be a long a boring list and I would much rather use valuable forum space for other renders.

You are correct that Poser vendors, by strict definition, are selling 3d assets however at many of the sites there are vendors selling 2d assets, which are marked as such, for the use as backgrounds. In some of the vendor's stores you can find examples of both types of products.

One final point, from your own description of your use of clip art you clearly work hard and blend a number of different assets to to arrive at your finished piece. The complaint here appears to be that the person who was the subject of this thread did none of this and then offered for the render to be used by others. If that is indeed correct I do find the morals to be questionable at least.

 

[eclark1894]

Another problem is that I have models from wwwaaaayyyy back when I first started Poser and I have no frickin' idea who made them, let alone where exactly I got them. So I can't use them anymore because I can't give proper credit? I have no idea who originally wrote Cinderella, but I'll bet you a quarter it wasn't Walt Disney.

 

[Deleted member 325]

I think the issue the OP was considering, and I would tend to agree, is the images/renders in question are not finished pieces. What they are is just items from a 3D source rendered with vague lighting against a single color background intended to be cut and pasted and used in other images. In this aspect it very much does undersell the original content creator as it will allow many to benefit from their 3D asset in 2D images without owning or purchasing it. It has been my experience, and it is my personal belief (in many ways backed by what I have learned and know from past experience over the decades) that this is a possible infringement and could violate the EULA.

If these were part of a complex image, it would be a different case.

Have I rendered content in such a way? Yes, for my own use in composite work and images, using content I bought and paid for. Doing so is acceptable, and using such items in a final image is also fine. I do feel that offering such clip art made from 3D sources is an IP infringement, unless the renders are radically altered, modified, and post processed in some way making them vastly different from the bare 3D source used.