"Christoph Hormann" <<mailto:chr### [at] gmxde>chr### [at] gmxde> a

<news:cc1dkb$907$2@chho.imagico.de>news:cc1dkb$907$2@chho.imagico.de...
 > In the past there have been attempts in these newsgroups to introduce
 > something like a default license for POV-SDL works, including proposals
 > to automatically put all things posted on this server under such a
 > license.  I would not recommend something like this because if people
 > feel forced to a certain license scheme this will result in less people
 > actually posting code which would be very bad IMO.

I wouldn't favour something like this either, for the same reasons. However,
having some general guidelines and counselling about what to do/not do would
be interesting.

 > Coming back to the original question - if you want to license data and
 > neither want to give it away completely free nor require everyone to pay
 > for use the obvious middle ways are 'free for non-commercial use'
 > (however you define that) or 'free for a limited time' (like shareware).

Right now, the issue is really to be able to give SDL code and models for
free with relatively clearcut and (at least theoretically) enforcable rules
regarding their use by 3rd parties. The ideal licence would be similar in
spirit to POV-Ray's own : you can do whatever you want with the code/model
but you can't claim it your own, you can't resell it as a product, if you
diffuse it you must include credits and if you modify it you must make sure
that the users are aware of the modifications. In these suit-happy times,
people are actually asking for this sort of clarification. I could write it
like that, but I'd prefer a template license written carefully by
professional people to take care of loopholes. In the above, for instance,
nothing is said about reselling modified meshes. As I said, I don't think
there are real life issues with SDL scripts, but meshes (or large bitmap
textures, btw) are something else because dark market forces are interested
in them ;-) I don't mind giving stuff for free, but I do mind the potential
hassles, for for the users and for myself. The template would also have the
benefit of recognition. Also I don't want to add a 3-page long EULA to every
script or model I put up for free...

 > I am not sure what you mean by abuse.  Using the data in a
 > politically/ethically/... questionable context or using it to make a lot
 > of $$$ without giving anything to you?

I'm not concerned about people making money from art derived from my SDL
scripts or models. If a company uses a free model of mine in a movie or an
ad, so be it. I dislike "no-commercial use" EULAs on free stuff because I
find that they're a hassle for users. However, my concern is about people
that would take a free model and sell it, because it would be a scam.

I have this nightmare scenario where the licence (or absence thereof) would
allow someone to take a POV-Ray mesh, convert it into a commercial format
and then sell it through a not too ethical channel with an attached
copyright that would prevent the original author to use his/her own model!
I'm not sure that this is even legally possible, but the fact is that I
don't know, and when it comes to high-value commercial products like 3D
meshes, I sort of expect anything...

G.


-- 

**********************
<http://www.oyonale.com>http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

news:40e460b2$1@news.povray.org...
> Gilles Tran wrote:
>
> So how does one go about licensing something? I guess I'm like Ingo on
> most things and "mine mine mine" on the remainder. Does this need to be
> somehow included in the image file? I've got a few pics on line, though
> somewhat hidden (not where you couldn't find them, I'm sure).

I think (could be wrong) that images are more easily covered by existing IP
laws than scripts and models, if only because violations are more blatant.
I'm not overly concerned with image licensing right now. Not only I avoid to
put on line images that are large enough to be commercially usable, but I'm
well aware that their commercial value isn't that high in the first
place...3D models are different because there's a real market for them.

G.

-- 
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

"ingo" <ing### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> You can't abuse Public Domain :)
>
> Ingo
>

can you sell something that exists in the public domain as your own? for
example, company X is in the business of selling 3d models to people who do
not know that same model is available in the public domain. if that's fine
and legal, and you don't care, then everyone wins i guess. time for me to go
read up on public domain i think... thanks for humoring my questions.

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:
> [...]
> I'm not concerned about people making money from art derived from my SDL
> scripts or models. If a company uses a free model of mine in a movie or an
> ad, so be it. I dislike "no-commercial use" EULAs on free stuff because I
> find that they're a hassle for users. However, my concern is about people
> that would take a free model and sell it, because it would be a scam.

So you want to draw the line between using the model in an image you do 
for money and selling the actual model (or a variation of it).  Although 
this distinction is not always clear it should be possible to do so. 
The problem would probably be to allow modification of the models 
because such modifications obfuscate the identity of the model.

The real problem will be actually prooving something being your model 
when it appears elsewhere.  AFAIK techniques for 'watermarking' 3D 
models already exist.  When the mesh is modified the watermark will 
usually no more be visible of course.  Both watermarking and actual 
comparison are much easier in case of images.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 01 May. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

in news:40e46e38@news.povray.org Gilles Tran wrote:

> However, my concern is about people
> that would take a free model and sell it, because it would be a scam.
> 

As Christoph said, a problem will be to proove the scam and then you also 
need the means to enforce the licence. Whatever restrictions you put in a 
lisence that will always be a problem.

I see no real way out of this except maybe by "flooding the world" with 
your models in various formats on various locations so "everybody" knows 
they are free. This may work for one or two of us because they are 
"known", but it is not a general solution.

How is this dealt with in other 3D communities?


Ingo

Post a reply to this message

news:cc1ubr$bui$1@chho.imagico.de...

> So you want to draw the line between using the model in an image you do
> for money and selling the actual model (or a variation of it).

The bottom line is that if I give something it should remain free. Of course
it's full of gray zones, particularly when people start adding value (as in
the case of, say, the commercial Linux distributions), since they could say
that they're selling the added value and not the object itself. I guess
restrictive licenses are easier to implement in that respect. When one
forbids everything, there are no gray zones. This why I almost no longer use
free models: I make my own or buy commercial ones. If I give away models,
I'd like the conditions to be clearly laid out so that users don't have
worry. Perhaps I should consider Public Domain after all.

> The real problem will be actually prooving something being your model
> when it appears elsewhere.  AFAIK techniques for 'watermarking' 3D
> models already exist.  When the mesh is modified the watermark will
> usually no more be visible of course.  Both watermarking and actual
> comparison are much easier in case of images.

I fear that enforcement is another annoying issue where people who have only
a moral stake are at a disadvantage...

G.

-- 
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

news:Xns9519EF0B8CE35seed7@news.povray.org...
> in news:40e46e38@news.povray.org Gilles Tran wrote:

> How is this dealt with in other 3D communities?

I mostly frequent the Poser sites, but models are either commercial or come
more and more with strict "no commercial use" restrictions, so that you
can't put them in commercial art for instance. There are really few people
now who provide high-quality models with no strings attached. And in any
case, it's a sensitive issue.
There's no equivalent to what we can see here or in the IRTC, where people
publish code and models routinely for everybody to use.

G.


-- 
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:

I've got an idea. Why not absolutely forbid distribution of the model in 
text form? That way, anyone could use the model for whatever images they 
liked (commercial or otherwise), but no one could distribute or sell the 
model itself.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:
> Given the largely non-commercial nature of POV-Ray materials such as models
> and SDL scripts, little attention has been given so far regarding the sort
> of licences that would best protect the use and diffusion of such materials
> (though I know that similar threads exist somewhere in the 50000 messages in
> p.general...). However, with mesh modelers becoming more mainstream in the
> POV-Ray community, it is becoming obvious that some POV-Ray material could
> start to attain a true commercial value once converted to another format, so
> the question is becoming a little more acute than before.
> 
> What sort of licence would best cover the most basic needs of the people who
> would like to share freely what they create for POV-Ray while having some
> minimal legal protection from potential abuse?

As for me, if I don't mind others using it, I would probably put the model
into the public domain.  If I do mind, I probably wouldn't license it at
all.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

ingo wrote:

> "If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean 
> that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL? 
> Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library."
> 
> ....who am I to tell you, under what licence you should publish your part 
> of the code?
> 

No one. That's a decision they make when incorporating GPL'd code
into their own.

Dave

Post a reply to this message