> I bought a text-book for one of my college courses, and lo-and-behold, one
> of my renderings (Grade One), was in the book.  I was so surprised and
> happy,
> considering it was the only non-winning image among other IRTC
> winners/runner ups.
>  [ ... ]


Hmm, would make a good /. article!
Anybody?

                                                            - Marco


_________________________

 Marco Bonetti
 marco (at) urbanet (dot) ch

Post a reply to this message

Alan Kong wrote:
> 
>   I don't know what recourse you have but I would first contact the
> publisher by e-mail and save all e-correspondence. If they do not
> reply to e-mail then I would write a letter and send it by certified
> mail accompanied by a return receipt (if you are in the U.S.) to
> maintain a record of correspondence.

I would like to point out that Prentice-Hall probably has no idea that
the images are not the work of H. L. Capron; in the Land of the
Man-Eating Lawyers, knowingly publishing plagiarized work is not worth
the risk.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

Bob Hughes wrote:
> 
> Both interesting and disturbing.  More so interesting to me though.
> Now I wish I had entered a lot of things into the IRTC ; )
> The fact there is a considerable number from a single source like a
> IRTC CD is odd in that it would (or should) have been obvious of the
> copyrights.

The author may have gotten the notion that the ostensibly educational
purpose of the book allows him to use other people's work without
paying for it.

Regards,
John
-- 
ICQ: 46085459

Post a reply to this message

Gautam N. Lad wrote in message <37eed7b2@news.povray.org>...
>Hi,
>I bought a text-book for one of my college courses, and lo-and-behold, one
>of my renderings (Grade One), was in the book.  I was so surprised and
>happy,
>considering it was the only non-winning image among other IRTC
>winners/runner ups.
>
>The book is called: Computers:
>Tools for an Information Age 6th Edition by H.L. Capron
>ISBN: 0-201-61211-9
>http://www.prenhall.com/capron
>
>Problem is, I was never told that my image would be appearing in the book.
>Is this somehow breaking one of the IRTC rules or violating my copyrights?
>All the files
>included for the submission included a statement from  me regarding
>permission of image/file, usage.
>I have written on my homepage's gallery and in the IRTC files (.POV, .TXT,
>etc.) that if
>you wish to use the image, you must first contact me to get my permission.
>
>Some of the images included in the book are (from the IRTC):
>
>- Roger, Gary and Bob by Jeane-Marie Haerens and Fabien Mosen
>- Untitled (image of Ice Cream Cone) by Nathan O'Brien (
>- Gomusic by Gena Obukhov (not sure if this is from IRTC)
>- Toco Toucan by Ian and Ethel MacKay
>- Pocketwatch by Kevin Odhner
>- Untitled (bucket of Sea Shells) by Steve Gowers (Summer theme)
>- Untitled (ship image) by Nathan O'Brien (Elements theme)
>- Grade One by Gautam Lad
>- Untitled (plane image) by Ian Armstrong (Flight theme)
>- Admiral Watch by Adrian Baumann
>- Ode to Prianesi by Nathan O'Brien
>
>My question to these artists: Did you receive any notice from the
>publisher/author? If not,
>do you think they violated your copyrights by using the image without your
>permission?
>
>Also, I don't plan on taking any legal action or anything; it's just that
>I'd like to know (in advance)
>where my work is being used.


After reading this thread, I checked my Computer Science textbook, and it
appears that POV-Ray is a very popular program for generating artwork for
these books.  However, the cover artwork in question in this case was
created by the author of the book, and no copyright violations are involved.

Mark

Post a reply to this message

Mark Wagner wrote:

> 
> After reading this thread, I checked my Computer Science textbook, and it
> appears that POV-Ray is a very popular program for generating artwork for
> these books.  However, the cover artwork in question in this case was
> created by the author of the book, and no copyright violations are involved.
> 
> Mark

Raises an interesting question. If someone uses "your" source code to
render an image on "their" computer is the image that is produced now
the property of the computer owner who produces the image ?

I know what you are going to say but I just say prove it :)

-- 
Ken Tyler
1100+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote:
> Raises an interesting question. If someone uses "your" source code to
> render an image on "their" computer is the image that is produced now
> the property of the computer owner who produces the image ?

 That's a very special case, and I can't think of any comparison in the
art field.  At worse, you could always consider Pov code as
automatically
copyrighted, just like any programming code.
 If someone commercially uses 100% of your code, you'll be upset.
 If someone commercially uses 1% of your code, you'll probably don't
care.
 Where's the limit ?  Where between "learning from existing code and
reusing
bits of it" and "stealing someone else's code" ?
 
 Many IRTC participants (including myself) prevents the re-rendering
of their images by changing the sources in various ways : missing
objects,
different maps,...

Fabien.

Post a reply to this message

I'd like to point out an interesting thing.

I did a bit of digging on the author.  Turns out that his first book in the
series got this as a review by Booknews Inc (April 1, 1990):

"A text for introductory computing courses, updated and expanded in the
areas of applications and the end-user, communications, and software and
hardware. Includes loads of color pictures and a buyer's guide to personal
computers. No bibliography."

The specifically state No bibliography which kind of leads me to beleive
that perhaps this author isn't totally careful about his sources and
copyrights.

Also, this series of books are quite pricey, ~$60 US - hardly non-profit!

So, I'd say contact all other artists if possible, get their opinions and
that of the ppl at IRTC, then decide what to do from there.  Ken had some
nice links on Copyright Law so check them out too.  In my opinion, they've
breeched your copyright and they are not using the book "non-profit".  Of
course I'm not a legal person clothed in black :)

Post a reply to this message

Fabien <fab### [at] skynetbe> wrote in message
news:37F### [at] skynetbe...
> Ken wrote:
> > Raises an interesting question. If someone uses "your" source code to
> > render an image on "their" computer is the image that is produced now
> > the property of the computer owner who produces the image ?
>
>  That's a very special case, and I can't think of any comparison in the
> art field.  At worse, you could always consider Pov code as
> automatically
> copyrighted, just like any programming code.
[snip]

That's not really the case (in the US):
Source needs a specific copyright statement (with year) to make it
copyrighted. If you publish your source without such a statement, it will
fall into the public domain.
But if you publish it with a statement, for example something like "If you
use the source or parts of it to render an image, you may not publish the
resulting image in any commercial way.. bla, bla..." then nobody can legally
use the image created by the source in any such way as you exclude it in the
copyright note.

Johannes.

Post a reply to this message

Fabien wrote:
> 
> Ken wrote:
> > Raises an interesting question. If someone uses "your" source code to
> > render an image on "their" computer is the image that is produced now
> > the property of the computer owner who produces the image ?
> 
>  That's a very special case, and I can't think of any comparison in the
> art field. 

Sure. Look at conceptual art. The walldrawings of Sol Lewitt for instance.
They're basically just a script, a 'scene-file' describing exactly how the final
drawing should look, what materials should be used etc. Which doesn't mean
you're free to copy it everywhere. I believe you have to buy a license and then
maybe even the master will supervise the drawing (if he's still alive).

I'm not very good at copyrights and such but I believe you're talking about
intellectual ownership here (or whatever you would call it).

Remco

Post a reply to this message

Marco Bonetti wrote:
> 
> Hmm, would make a good /. article!
> Anybody?

The combination of copyright on postings and the private news server
makes that difficult unless Gautam copies his original posting to a web
page /. can link to.  In the meantime it's probably best for the
aggrieved to contact the publisher before contacting the media.  I don't
suppose anyone has heard anything from the publisher in the last few
days?

-Mark Gordon

Post a reply to this message