Professional Courtesy for 3D Warehouse Models
-
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