Gilles Tran wrote:
> People have been using my tree, grass, pipe etc.
> macros a lot in the last years. They have modified
> them and improved them. I'm glad of this and I think
> that it makes my work even more valuable, since it
> allows innovation and circulation of ideas. Allowing
> people to do this is also a way for me to thank all
> those who have done the same before. What is the
> global benefit in not allowing this ?

It's a personal benefit. I have not given my files to the public domain,
and I'd like to keep control of how and where they are distributed. That
is not possible if people can distribute modified versions of my files
as they please.

> Granted, a few people (including me) sell images or
> do commissioned work that include free material.
> In my case, the restritcion will prevent me from
> using your macros altogether, since I rarely know
> beforehand if I will make an image available for sale
> or not.

If you do make it available for sale, you can buy a license to use the
particle system commercially.

> Even if I don't sell it, it may happen one day that
> someone wants it for a book.

Would you gain any profit from this? If yes, see above. If not, this
might be a good situation to ask me for a special permission, since the
situation is a bit special (commercial work where you don't get any
profit yourself).

> I understand that people who provide free material
> can think that this is not fair that others benefit
> from it.

Exactly.

> Personally, I don't care whether my free stuff is
> used commercially or not : I do it to help and please
> people, and this includes people making a few bucks
> on the side.

I do not feel the same way.

> The possibility of people abusing this seems extremely
> remote in the case of POV-Ray.

Still, there are people who both can and will pay for a license to use
my files commercially, and I'd like to take that opportunity for *me* to
make a few bucks on the work I have done. And I think it's only fair.

> There are possible problems, but I don't think that
> a strict TOS will solve them, particularly when you
> wouldn't be able to enforce it.

As I've said, I can only appeal to people's honesty.

> if you think that your material has a market value,
> making it clearly commercial (instead of limiting its use)
> is the way to go.

Clearly commercial so that hobbyists will also have to pay to use it
non-commercially? That's not something I'm interested in. Or what do you
mean exactly?

> However, having been there myself, I'd say that
> it's your skills that you need to sell, not the
> product itself, whose uses are targeted at a largely
> penniless hobbyist crowd.

Penniless until the day they begin earning money on it. And until that
day, they won't have to pay me anything.

I'm not sure what you mean by "selling my skills rather than the product
itself".

> OK, what if Chris Colefax, or Jaime or I start doing
> the same... Or the POV-Team itself ? Anyone here want
> to see that ?

We surely couldn't blame them. (Of course, the POV-Team have more or
less promised that they will never do it, so it would be kind of strange
if they broke that promise.)

Gilles, your macros and object collection is of high quality, so I
wouldn't mind being required to credit you wherever I use it, and I
wouldn't mind having to pay for it if I used it commercially.

So no, I don't see the problem.

> In my experience, people are more than willing to give
> credit when credit is due.

Except the few individuals who simply are not aware that it's considered
polite to give credit in such cases.

> I think that NOT asking for credits is much nicer to
> users than asking.

This is just a small detail IMO. I'd rather make things clear.

> Also, *** requiring *** people to give you credit
> is too much to ask.

Why? I think it's quite common tendency for free things on the net,
isn't it?

> There are also priorities in what one can consider worth
> of credit or not and for me this decision only belongs
> to the artist.

No, in the case of my files it's not the decision of the artist. The
artist can buy a commercial license by paying me money, or buy a
non-commercial license by "paying" me credit where due.

> So again, by using your macros the user could risk
> violating the TOS some day.

I don't see how that can happen involuntarily. Users don't risk
violating the TOS if they follow it.

I appreciate this discussion, so please don't hesitate to pursue your
arguments further. It is not totally out of the question that I might
make changes to some of the terms... :)

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
rune|vision:  http://runevision.com (updated Oct 19)
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message