Ken wrote:
> 
> Ron Parker wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 16:44:01 -0500, Adam Coffman wrote:
> > >http://www.ipfw.edu/math/Coffman/pov/gallery.html
> >
> > Careful what you do with that chesspiece.  This is from povlegal:
> >
> > The user is also granted the right to use the scene files,
> > fonts, bitmaps, and include files distributed in the
> > INCLUDE and SCENES\INCDEMO sub-directories in their own
> > scenes. Such permission does not extend to files in the
> > SCENES directory or its sub-directories. The SCENES files
> > are for your enjoyment and education but may not be the
> > basis of any derivative works.
> 
> This whole derivative works thing is ugly. If I copy an object statement
> out of one of the scene files such as -
> 
> box { <-1-1-1>,<1,1,1> pigment { color rgb <1,1,1> } }
> 
> and use it in one of my scenes then technically I am creating
> a derivitive work. Where do you draw the line ?
> 
> What about all the people who use the standard include files in their
> scenes ? Are those not then derivitive works ? Again where do you draw
> the line ?
> 
> If I "create" the above example myself, and then copyright the
> scene file, is everyone who ever uses the exact same syntax in
> violation of copyright law ?
> 
> I just now decided I am not going to worry about it. If someone ever
> accuses me of plagarism the proof is theirs to provide and they will
> have to bear the costs of prosecution.
> 
> --
> Ken Tyler


Thanks for your comments, Ron and Ken.
I was careless with regard to that paragraph in the terms of use.

When I'm not being careless, I usually am concerned about issues of
fair use, but I'm also no expert on legal notions like "basis of
derivative work" or the rights of artists (either the creator or the
copier).  Having gone back and re-read the terms of use, and the
specific comments in the "chess2.pov" file, I think what I originally
did (giving credit only to the POV directory, and posting a notice on
this news group) is just not adequate, with respect to either
complying with the terms of use, or notifying the creators that I've
modified their artistic property for my own use (which, while not for
profit, was not entirely private either).

Even though Ken brings up interesting points, that particular scene
was clearly not entirely my own work.  As an example of another issue,
if I had a student who turned this in for a graphics assignment, even
giving as much credit as I did, I'd probably ask the student to do
something more original.

Mostly because this takes less effort than giving any further thought
to these issues, I've modified the image on my web site, to make it
more my own (a possibly flawed theory that the derivative of a
derivative is not a derivative?), thus implementing the solution of
Lewis Carroll:

OFF WITH HER HEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Adam C.

Post a reply to this message