Never upload your work to 3D warehouse!!!
-
@nick c said:
I will try your point of view and go to the local police station, find someone that has been burgled and tell them that they should have expected it because they have a nice house. What do you think thay are going to say to me?
i think that depends on whether or not their lease agreement had this in there:
@unknownuser said:
*By uploading, submitting or otherwise storing content in the Services, you agree to license certain rights to Google, Trimble and others, as described below:
…………………….Rights granted to other end users of the Services. You give other end users of the Services a perpetual, sublicensable, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute Existing Geolocated Models, Existing Non-Geolocated Models, New Models and related content and derivative works thereof which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services.*
it's not even a question of morals at this point.. nothing has even been 'stolen' from you in the legal sense..
go into the police station and plea your case on this.. what do you think they are going to say to you? They will beat you like a dog untill**(sic)** you are dead.
-
@nick c said:
you are wrong phacot.
Under the British / USA law and i would imagine all the rest of the countries in the world. You can leave your shop/house unlocked with the door wide open with no one inside. And anyone entering and taking any item and walking out is still classes as stealing. The police will still arrest and charge them.
There is no excuss to say that a Google Site is understaffed. maybe they should sell some of the mapping vehicals i keep seeing on the discovery channel.
Oh, i forgot. They just sold Sketchup, they should have loads of money for more staff.
Under British law, if you stick a sign up in your shop saying "Free items, take whatever you want." and then call the police when you see the shop next door selling your things then the police will tell you that they are committing no crime because you gave them away.
That's what you are doing when you give your models away on the 3DW.
Just be thankful that you're producing models that someone wants to take credit for. Now if only you could put some work into making your sketchucation posts worth reading.
-
-
Posting an exact copy is a violation of Googles own policey and if they take no action or no one cares, that is hardy my fault. I didn't make the rules for the site, Google did.
But i have learnt one things from this whole experience of posting on this Forum and the replies.
Never upload or give anything away for free.
Don't worry, i am off. I don't want to be part of this forum. Where everyone defends copying and google for not upholding their own site policey's.
bye Bye
-
look.. the conversation isn't about whether or not google has a fair policy.
the fact is, google has a policy that you agreed to.. and it clearly states the person you're accusing of stealing is in fact not stealing at all..
and where does google state that you can not upload an exact copy?
-
Nick, if you are now "hurt" because you completely misunderstand what others are trying to hint to you (i.e. "do not share anything in the 3D WH unless you do not mind it being 'stolen' by others") and leave the forums for this reason, you are acting childish. We are not Google, nor we make the rules and especially have no influence on how these rules are enforced. Everyone here was saying what you said - just differently. There is a TOS but as with any Google TOS, an experienced lawyer is needed to interpret it (incidentally I am a lawyer but I find so many contradictions in the rules that I would not dare to give a legal advice to anyone).
-
@unknownuser said:
and where does google state that you can not upload an exact copy?
I can't find any mention of it in the TOS or content policy, but it is listed as an option when you click on the "Report a policy violation" link.
-
@nick c said:
Posting an exact copy is a violation of Googles own policey and if they take no action or no one cares, that is hardy my fault. I didn't make the rules for the site, Google did.
But i have learnt one things from this whole experience of posting on this Forum and the replies.
Never upload or give anything away for free.
Don't worry, i am off. I don't want to be part of this forum. Where everyone defends copying and google for not upholding their own site policey's.
bye Bye
I'll be honest and say I was completely wrong about you. I'd have put money on you being a teenage boy with your attitude and the way you come across.
But I just looked at your website and you're clearly not a kid, you're over 40 years old. Seriously, what type of life have you lead that means you react like this to this trivial nonsense? I dread to think how many times you've been beaten up if you act in real life like you have on here.
-
I notice on Nick's website he has stolen the History Channel's H logo for a button to his History page.
Pot-Kettle-Black. -
@hieru said:
@unknownuser said:
and where does google state that you can not upload an exact copy?
I can't find any mention of it in the TOS or content policy, but it is listed as an option when you click on the "Report a policy violation" link.
I think that may be sending the wrong message. as in, it's regarding copyright infringement.. If someone uploaded, say, a model purchased from Form Fonts, then the copyright has been infringed upon..
but the TOS clearly (ok, maybe not crystal clear) states you can replicate (copy), publish (upload), distribute (share) -- models that are posted on the warehouse.
-
@hieru said:
Clearly it needs rewording and clarifying.
i don't really get the reasoning behind it but… i think they do that crap on purpose
-
@unknownuser said:
I think that may be sending the wrong message.
I agree. To me it reads as if it's referring to exact copies of models from the warehouse - but that contradicts the TOS.
Clearly it needs rewording and clarifying.
I don't understand how you can retain the copyright on your model when others are allowed to redistribute them as they like. I think that modifying or adapting models is within the spirit of the warehouse, but I would personally like to see the unattributed redistribution of unaltered models prohibited (unless they are used as part of a large scene).
As the TOS stands I'm still happy to continue sharing models via the warehouse, but it would be good to see some kind of revision in the future.
-
Maybe, but I'd be more inclined to think that it's because they couldn't figure out how to reconcile the fact that you can't protect creative copyright when giving content away for free.
I don't think it possible either. The best you could hope for are TOS that oblige users to credit modelers when redistributing their work. 9 times out of 10 that won't happen though.
-
@hieru said:
Maybe, but I'd be more inclined to think that it's because they couldn't figure out how to reconcile the fact that you can't protect creative copyright when giving content away for free.
I don't think it possible either. The best you could hope for are TOS that oblige users to credit modelers when redistributing their work. 9 times out of 10 that won't happen though.
oh.. i meant 'they' as in lawyers in general (or whoever it is that writes like that)..
i mean, i sort of get it.. they go to school for years and study all these past cases etc. in which that type of language is used.. i'm sure at the base of it, there are certain clarifications being made by their choice of words but the problem is, most people -- the people that have to agree to these clauses -- do not understand the language being used..
as i see it, it's not as if they're using words/ideas/concepts that can't be put into plain english for us plebs.. anyway..regarding the copyright being kept by the original author.. i guess* that means the original author can still sell the model whereas everyone else just has royalty free usage rights. (i.e.- you can't download a model then sell it.. however, you can download a model and use it in a rendering or something which is being sold or used commercially) ???
the original author also has the right to pull the model off the warehouse in the future.. (i.e.- by uploading to the warehouse, you're not giving all rights to google in which they then have full control over how the model is distributed in the future) ??- please note my use of the word 'guess' there
- please note my use of the word 'guess' there
-
I can't believe that all the models that I click to see are all reported stolen.
Its funny and creepy at the same time. Titi aka Oliver Aubry is a 3D model psycho @ stalker maybe...
(just joking) -
@unknownuser said:
i.e.- you can't download a model then sell it
That's what I thought as well, but........
"You give other end users of the Services a perpetual, sublicensable, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute Existing Geolocated Models, Existing Non-Geolocated Models, New Models and related content and derivative works thereof which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services."
The above clearly says that there it's OK to download models from the warehouse and then redistribute them. Wouldn't selling models count as redistribution?
-
this is the point in the conversation where i just quit guessing (the part where money comes into play and needing to interpret the TOS).. i mean, i'm just making guesses in this thread, and i hope my comments come through as such, but i don't want to mislead anyone about this.
it'd be really nice for a google/trimble rep to clarify these questions for us but for some reason, i highly doubt that's going to happen
but one other guess i might make -- is that titi doesn't know about some of the features of the warehouse… and that his uploads are basically just his way of bookmarking certain models that he may need to use further down the road..
judging by all of his uploaded models, it doesn't look to me like he's just going around scooping up nice models then trying to present them to the public as his own..
-
There are so many contradictions all any of us can do is take a guess at how we are supposed to interpret the TOS
I would however imagine that Trimble will probably eventually get around to looking at the TOS.
@unknownuser said:
his uploads are basically just his way of bookmarking certain models that he may need to use further down the road.
That's certainly a possibility - I hadn't thought of that.
-
@hieru said:
The above clearly says...
I understand what the extract is getting at yes - but I am fortunate enough to have had a good education, and am old enough to have had many work contracts to ponder before signing on the dotted line. (and I took the effort to actually read it!)
But not everybody is so fortunate - what is wrong with...
perpetual = for ever
sublicensable = share it with friends
derivative work = the one you changed the colour of
Even when the words used in EULAs do appear common-sense, they may have very specific non-intuitive meanings when used legally.
In reality, the majority of such agreements are signed by folks not able to fully understand what they are signing (that is not intended to sound demeaning) - what else are folks meant to do?- you could not possibly use a PC for anything if you are not prepared to pretend that you read it, understood it, and tick "I agree".I think that like the EULAs of many "community" sites, the 'legalese' is used to obscure the true intent of the agreement - not for the peace of mind of end users, but to protect the site host from being prosecuted for 'aiding and abetting' illegal activity.
The EULA is Google's way of saying "protecting your copyright is not our problem." -
@trogluddite said:
I think that like the EULAs of many "community" sites, the 'legalese' is used to obscure the true intent of the agreement - not for the peace of mind of end users, but to protect the site host from being prosecuted for 'aiding and abetting' illegal activity.
The EULA is Google's way of saying "protecting your copyright is not our problem."That's the way I interpret it as well, although I would add that it's carefully worded to make it look like they have the interests of the end users at heart.
Advertisement