Is this legal, or just unethical?

[eclark1894]

Let's say I have a batch of bvh animation or mo-cap files, BUT they do NOT work properly on Dusk or Dawn. In fact, it takes about as much work and time to get them to work properly as if you were doing it from scratch. But I persevere, and finally not only get them all to work flawlessly, but I even save them in Poser file format.

If I package them up for redistribution, is that illegal or just unethical? How much do you have to alter a pose or a texture, or any asset to claim it as your own work? This reminds me of a question I saw in a youtube video about your grandfather's axe. Your grandfather owned an axe, and when he died, he left it to you. If you used the axe and a piece broke off, but you replaced it. How much of the axe do you need to replace before it would stop being your grandfather's axe?

 

[Janet]

Where did you get the original files?

 

[eclark1894]

There are a number of sites where you can down load them for free. Most notably Carnegie Mellon Universty maintains an archive of them. Check the Animation category of directory for more sites. And for the record, I AM NOT advocating that anyone do this. Just asking a hypothetical question.

 

[Janet]

I saw the Carnegie Mellon site and they allow redistribution as I recall.

 

[HaiGan]

It would depend on the terms under which the original files were distributed. If they require that the files be altered before redistribution then they should give an indication of what sort of alteration is required (or give contact details for the rights holder so it's possible to clarify with them). A typical requirement seems to be that it should not be possible to reconstruct the original files from the altered ones.

 

[Deleted member 325]

This link is from the U.S. copyright office and explains much of what you are asking as it would be covered under U.S. copyright law (other nations may differ, but likely have a similar office to look up an answer in).

What you are describing would fall under the description of a derivative work. Under most copyright laws, no amount of work or alteration will ever make such a work yours, but there is a threshold used to determine if you can proceed without it infringing on the original content owners rights. I will note, in many artistic fields, even when you meet those legal criteria, original authors still often feel shorted or ripped off. It is best to use the licensing terms of the original author or the files point of distribution as a guideline - just as when converting 3D objects available on the web from format to format (some authors are fine with conversion and just want credit, others forbid redistribution of conversions).

 

[eclark1894]

Pose conversion is such a fuzzy thing though. After all, how many different ways is there to wave hello at someone? And in the past, I have used someone's pose as a starting point for one of mine. Does that make my pose a derivitive of theirs even if the beginning and end poses are vastly different? For example, say Maisie is walking own a city street. She sees Pauline and waves. And that's the pose I start from. But when I finish, Maisie is seated in a car, still waving to Pauline, as she (Maisie) drives by down a city street.

 

[Deleted member 325]

Pose conversion is such a fuzzy thing though. After all, how many different ways is there to wave hello at someone? And in the past, I have used someone's pose as a starting point for one of mine. Does that make my pose a derivitive of theirs even if the beginning and end poses are vastly different? For example, say Maisie is walking own a city street. She sees Pauline and waves. And that's the pose I start from. But when I finish, Maisie is seated in a car, still waving to Pauline, as she (Maisie) drives by down a city street.

I understand what you are saying and the point of view, what makes it a derivative is that you start with another's work. This is something I have to be careful of as a vendor of mainly poses. I have to either start with a pose of my own, or a zeroed figure. Where possible I try to use photo and video references intended for artists, which is not always possible, or if I can take my own reference images, sometimes with the aide of friends. While with posing a figure it is a different medium than, for example, using someones painting or photograph in a new painting or photograph - and to my knowledge there have been no cases involving such unless you get into much more advanced dance routine choreography...which falls under performance arts in the U.S. copyright code and can be copyright. I guess it can get into very complex issues if it is really deconstructed.

 

[Charles West]

Such questions will be around for a long time. It reminded me of a paper that as a non-traditional student I had run thru one of those sites to avoid plagiarism. It had kicked back because of a 4 word phrase and the instructor said to change it to avoid 'accidental plagiarism'. The Dean of the dept laughed when years later I told him of the event. I had read the article after the link was provided by the search site about a week after completing my paper. How many ways can you do a royal wave? At what point does the axe become yours? With all the papers written about a thesis and instructors requiring referring to other papers to backup your idea, Is there any paper that is an 'original idea'? When you give a Doctoral Thesis, other Doctorates must be in the audience. Who judged the first Doctoral Thesis? Who were the references? We may never know.

The phrase that the instructor told me to change was "....and then she said.....". The dean laughed at the instruction to change it. I then took a paper to him to sign requesting him to Notarize my signature. It started another sets of debates. I had simply written a statement that Charles West was given permission to use any of my work in future papers without reference to the original author or previous paper. I saw it as a way not to be brought under fire if a later dated paper could not be brought under fire because of a paragraph I had previously written. He laughed at the discussions from the 'plagiarism patrol' group of instructors.

Sorry I don't have an answer and only more questions. If all papers require references to other papers does that mean there is no more 'original thought' in any papers written?

Good luck on your searches.
Charles

 

[seachnasaigh]

If you're adapting unrestricted BVHs, and distributing the pz2 adapted to fit the rig of Roxie, I would think that would be neither illegal nor unethical.

 

[Nod]

As long as you're not selling them, then there shouldn't be a problem, especially as the source says that they can be redistributed.

 

[Bonnie2001]

It all seems terribly complicated and confusing, enough to put some people off trying to make things.

 

[seachnasaigh]

It is neither illegal nor unethical to adapt/refine a Carnegie Mellon BVH to some Poser doll and distribute the pz2.

From the CMU eula:

• "This dataset of motions is free for all uses."
• "You may include this data in commercially-sold products,
  but you may not resell this data directly, even in converted form."

From the CMU eula, I would say that you cannot simply re-save the BVHs as pz2s and then sell them, but you could distribute that as a freebie.
But the eula expressly allows derivative works to be sold. If you adapt the BVHs, refitting them to Roxie's bone rig, and maybe clean up and smooth out keys here and there to refine the motion sequence, then it appears to me that you could sell the PZ2.

The two clauses in that sentence state A is allowed, but B is not.
So, commercial redistribution is definitely permitted; the question is distinguishing between permissible inclusion of the data in a commercial product versus reselling the data directly.

 

[eclark1894]

It is neither illegal nor unethical to adapt/refine a Carnegie Mellon BVH to some Poser doll and distribute the pz2.

From the CMU eula:

• "This dataset of motions is free for all uses."
• "You may include this data in commercially-sold products,
  but you may not resell this data directly, even in converted form."

View attachment 37830

From the CMU eula, I would say that you cannot simply re-save the BVHs as pz2s and then sell them, but you could distribute that as a freebie.
But the eula expressly allows derivative works to be sold. If you adapt the BVHs, refitting them to Roxie's bone rig, and maybe clean up and smooth out keys here and there to refine the motion sequence, then it appears to me that you could sell the PZ2.

The two clauses in that sentence state A is allowed, but B is not.
So, commercial redistribution is definitely permitted; the question is distinguishing between permissible inclusion of the data in a commercial product versus reselling the data directly.

This is where the lawyers would step in, and argue about what the word "converted" means. Does it mean a different file format, or adapted to a different rig? So would adapting them to work on Roxie and then selling them as a pose set for Roxie be a violation of that EULA. Technically, you are reselling the data in a converted form".