Professional Courtesy for 3D Warehouse Models
-
Well, the emphasis above was on "aggregate another collection for redistribution", not alteration or not.
The question is however persistent and from time to time it arises scattered all around the different forums. See some examples:
http://groups.google.com/group/3dwh/browse_frm/thread/4a507d785326a353?hl=en#
http://groups.google.com/group/3dwh/browse_frm/thread/53b07618d6240cd2?hl=en#
(yes, I know...)Until Google's main goal with SU is to populate GE with user made models (well, so to say... or at lest one of the major functions of the WH is this), that are obviously "individual" so there's no much***** use to "steal" them, the policy cannot be expected to change - or even "enforce" any "reasonable" practice.
***** Note the not MUCH use... of course, there can be use of doing so but that's a different story (I precisely know an example of).
-
Employ the common courtesy you seek.......IE just send him a quick email thanking him for using your model to illustrate his rendering skills and ask him if he wouldn't mind attributing the model to you on his website.
-
@unknownuser said:
If you are a designer who is trying to build a reputation and offer designs on 3D Warehouse as a means to gain exposure, well, that is the price you pay
Is it really the best place to build a reputation? Maybe I'm being picky with your terminology but there is a big difference between a designer and an exceptionally good modeller. A good modeller could pick up some work from 3DW but I can't see how a designer in any discipline will benefit directly as a result of posting their original works on 3DW.
I agree with Alan that in the UK, there is a naive public perception that a few stylistic changes absolves anybody of abiding by copyright law. But detecting it, proving it and doing anything legal about it is something else. I've found that there is also a widespread belief that as long as you credit the creator, somewhere, you don't need to get their actual permission to use their work. On more than one occasion, a photographer friend of mine has discovered his work has been used in this way.
A while ago I sent an email to an ebay seller that was selling something SU or 3d related, I can't remember exactly what. He had posted images that I am sure I had seen posted on this forum, so I asked him if he had permission to use them, but the bid closed shortly afterwards. He never got back to me but I doubt very much that he did have permission.
3DW does raise a question about what is deemed as commercial use. I'm probably about to show my own naivety here. Can entourage in an image be classed as commercial, as you could argue that you are not actually selling those components? For instance, an architect visualises a building. The visual contains trees, people, cars and furniture from 3DW (I know Formfonts is different because FF are just renting you the model, is that right Alan?). But the architect is commercially selling the building design, not the entourage. Grey area? Even if its totally black and white I don't think it would be worth anyone's time and money to try to sue over it.
-
@linea said:
3DW does raise a question about what is deemed as commercial use. I'm probably about to show my own naivety here. Can entourage in an image be classed as commercial, as you could argue that you are not actually selling those components? For instance, an architect visualises a building. The visual contains trees, people, cars and furniture from 3DW (I know Formfonts is different because FF are just renting you the model, is that right Alan?). But the architect is commercially selling the building design, not the entourage. Grey area? Even if its totally black and white I don't think it would be worth anyone's time and money to try to sue over it.
I'm pretty sure that this is clear, at least here in the UK. If the building is obviously the main subject of the visualisation, then using the entourage is not breaching commercial usage terms. If the entourage itself is the subject of the visualisation, then commercial usage terms will have been breached (depending on the licence itself of course.)
3DW entourage is not commercial, but I suspect that a similar situation would prevail if you really wanted to pusue this through the courts, but you probably weaken your case by posting on the 3DW.
In the case of the watch, the site is Canadian (though I first thought it was asian from the parent company name), so I would imagine similar laws pertain.
Seriously though, a polite approach to the guy may be all that is required, so try that first. Offer him a link in exchange from your own site if you have one. Links help improve web search rankings, so you'd both benefit.
-
@unknownuser said:
Not to put too fine a point on things; the entire self-regulating structure of the warehouse is so fundamentally flawed that claims of original authorship are about as meaningful as its ratings system.
Without wanting to be cynical I have to agree.
-
Thanks for all the feedback and the relevant discussion.
I know I don’t have any legal right to expect anything from things I post on the warehouse. I post things there because as a non-professional I want my work to be useful to as many people as possible. Based on my “portfolio” in the warehouse, I have received requests to do modeling. When it has come from fellow woodworkers, I have often done it as a favor. When it has come from others, the offered rate of pay has been so low that it’s not worth my time.
I probably don’t even have any right to be angry. But I do think less of other people when they are deceptive, and I do get angry when I see others taking credit for my work. I'm not asking for much, just courtesy.
@john.warburton said:
In the case of the watch, the site is Canadian (though I first thought it was asian from the parent company name), so I would imagine similar laws pertain.
I didn’t mean to leave clues for anyone to find it, but I think I figured out how you did.
@john.warburton said:
Seriously though, a polite approach to the guy may be all that is required, so try that first. Offer him a link in exchange from your own site if you have one. Links help improve web search rankings, so you'd both benefit.
That’s an excellent idea and as many said above, I should tone down my letter and I should ask for it as a favor since I have no legal rights.
And you guys are right about the warehouse. It's a vast wasteland, but the concept is good, and there are spots of gold.
-
Jon, I wouldn’t have thought that there was much difference between what FormFonts does and what can/does happen to content on the 3DW in terms of 2D visualisations. We provide content specifically for that, so it’s nice if people do credit us, but we certainly wouldn’t expect it as a matter of course.
As John suggests, there is a difference, however, between, for instance, an architectural visualisation or a movie pre-viz…which are means to an end (the end being the actual building or movie) and something which might be regarded as an end in itself.
We have recently granted permission for many of our models to be included in illustrations in a new SketchUp book in return for an acknowledgement and various other forms of publicity. This kind of usage is negotiated on an individual basis and might actually entail some kind of commercial fee, because the model renders are forming part of something which is being directly marketed on a commercial basis.Basically, you’ve got the entire spectrum of usage from inclusion of a single model in a visual (no credit expected) right up to someone rendering those 3D models, deleting the background, then offering them on their own site as 2D Face Me components…something which absolutely contravenes the Terms of Use and is clearly a breach of copyright.
Similarly, anyone submitting models to the 3D Warehouse has to accept the fact that they are free to be downloaded by anyone else visiting there and are equally likely to be used commercially…probably without any credit. I would imagine that as most people regard the 3DW as a free resource they would pay scant attention to the niceties of crediting the original author (if indeed they are the original author…I’d be seriously pissed to see an illustration crediting some little toe rag that had stolen a FF model and posted it to the Warehouse, claiming authorship). Not to put too fine a point on things; the entire self-regulating structure of the warehouse is so fundamentally flawed that claims of original authorship are about as meaningful as its ratings system.
-
When it all shakes down, since the watch is not his original design - John has probably contravened the patent and copyrights held by Seiko.
DE -
Contravening a patent with a model would be quite hard, i would have thought. Although i agree with the copyright.
-
@remus said:
Contravening a patent with a model would be quite hard, i would have thought. Although i agree with the copyright.
A patent can also refer to a registered trademark such as the word SEIKO.
-
Surely thats a trademark issue rather than a patent one.
-
I've read hundreds of clearance/standards and practices reports over the years and apparently there are circumstances where the two overlap. I'm not really interested in debating the legal aspects of this, I was merely trying to point out that, in fact, the guy who is so incensed about not receiving just recognition has actually place himself in a situation where SEIKO could make him remove the model... unless, of course, he has permission.
It is all a slippery slope. -
@double espresso said:
It is all a slippery slope.
right.. in a round-about way, a similar scenario might be:
guy#1 films himself playing/singing a beatles tune and uploads it to youtube.. guy#2 takes that cover song and puts it on his website.. guy#1 complains that guy#2 is stealing his stuff when in fact they are both ripping off John Lennon (r.i.p.)
-
Sorry, i wasnt trying to argue it, i was just interested.
-
@unknownuser said:
guy#1 films himself playing/singing a beatles tune and uploads it to youtube.. guy#2 takes that cover song and puts it on his website.. guy#1 complains that guy#2 is stealing his stuff when in fact they are both ripping off John Lennon (r.i.p.)
off topic, but actually they would be ripping off Sony. Michael Jackson bought the rights to all the Beatles songs in the eighties. He then sold the rights to Sony in 1995 for 95 million dollars. The surviving Beatles McCartney and Starr don't get a penny.
-
@double espresso said:
When it all shakes down, since the watch is not his original design - John has probably contravened the patent and copyrights held by Seiko.
DEI actually thought about that while I was doing it. As you say, it's a slippery slope. It's slippery and the edges are messy in part because those edges are defined by people (lawyers) who benefit from the edges being as confused as possible. If Seiko calls me, I'll let you all know.
Back to the original issue, I did send a more positive e-mail and got a nice one in return. When I get to it, I'll post his link on my blog with pictures and he'll return the favor.
Everybody's happy. 
(Except perhaps Seiko.) -
I wouldn't worry about Seiko, John. Just think of all the 3D car marques that are out there on the Net. Anyway, it's good publicity for them; contesting the issue and coming across as a miserly curmudgeon is quite the reverse.
That is quite different from the case of the idiot that started posting dozens of FormFonts meshes to another forum. When challenged, he actually had the gall to claim that he was doing us a favour by publicising the site. Yeah, right...like I'd be doing someone else a favour by giving all their wordly goods away to demonstrate what good taste they had.
Polite approaches often work. I'm glad it did in your case. But just occasionally you hit the Twilight Zone.
Advertisement