J. Grimbert wrote:
> 
> The Yodeling Veterinarian of the Alps wrote:
> >
> > I understand that one of the animations in the "Robot" round used
> > models taken directly off of the Lightwave CD-ROM, without
> > attribution in the .txt file, which is required by the contest
> > rules.  The animation in question didn't win anything.

> I wouldn't like the issue 4: Afterall, even if the models were taken
> from somewhere, the animation might be original.
> 
> Obviously issue 1 is not the right solution. Unless the omission was
> not intentional.
> 
> I would go a for something between 2 and 3, and yet more radical :
>  allow vote and comment on all entries, but then disqualify
>  the offending entry from any prizes (including merits, not only first
>   place) and give it the last rank (whatever its score).
>  It would still drag the quality up, showing what can be done to
>  all the people, but their would be no benefit for the author
>  (and keeping the entries will remind them forever what may
>  have been their score and the great impression they did, if only
>  they haven't cheated...)
> 
>  Of course the offense must be verified before applying such
>  a punition. I think for an animation, it may apply to the main
>  character but a tolerance should exist for a small secondary object
>  whose appearence is only during a small part of the movie.
>
> Or do you intend to inforce a zero-tolerance ? What if the author
>  just forget to write that the framed picture in the corridor,
>  which is seen only during 1/20 of the movie, was taken from
>  a demo-scene of the POV distribution, whereas s/he has given
>  credit for about twenty macros and about fifty objects ?

I'm primarily concerned about the legal problems this could create.
An omission on the part of the artist might not be noticed until
after the IRTC started selling the CD-ROM that contained it, at which
point it could land the IRTC people in court.

Consider the print media.  If you have ever plagiarized someone's work
for commercial publication, no publisher will ever deal with you again.
Even if it was an accident, it means that you have failed to exercise
the necessary degree of care when using other people's work.  How is the
publisher to know that another such failure won't happen again?

Okay, so the IRTC gets hauled into court and doesn't get hit for a huge
judgment.  I betcha they still can't afford the legal fees.

Is zero-tolerance too strict?  If nothing else will make the people
here take intellectual property issues seriously, then no.

If the IRTC people think it's important enough, they can ask for
specific confirmation that each entrant is the creator of each and
every object for which no credit is given.

Regards,
John
-- 
ICQ: 46085459

Post a reply to this message