triple_r wrote:
> I think this is the reason I didn't post the work a few years back and perhaps I
> should not have posted it now.  Have I just opened myself up to litigation?

Nah. For anyone to litigate, there would have to be something they could 
get that way that you wouldn't give them cheaper. Nobody really cares. I 
was just discussing theoretically.

Now, if you'd depicted Luxo doing rude things to Luxo Jr or something, I 
can see someone at Pixar actually asking you to stop doing that. 
(Apparently, Larry Niven has sent letters to folks depicting Known Space 
Porn.)  Other than that, what benefit would they get doing more than 
sending you a letter saying to stop distributing it?

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> (Apparently, Larry Niven has sent letters to folks depicting Known Space
> Porn.)

Hoho, I bet there's a wide spectrum of tastes there. What self-respecting
flatlander would pay to see jinxians doing it? :-)

Post a reply to this message

"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> schreef in bericht 
news:web.47f9f64ed70e611b731f01d10@news.povray.org...
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> (Apparently, Larry Niven has sent letters to folks depicting Known Space
>> Porn.)
>
> Hoho, I bet there's a wide spectrum of tastes there. What self-respecting
> flatlander would pay to see jinxians doing it? :-)
>

Well, there is that matter about Puppeteer sex...

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Hoho, I bet there's a wide spectrum of tastes there. What self-respecting
> flatlander would pay to see jinxians doing it? :-)

If I recall correctly, the complaint was more along the line of "human 
females don't smell right to Kzinti."

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

triple_r wrote:
> Not perfect, but here's an old model ca. 2002.  It's fun to revisit old scenes
> with an order of magnitude more computing power.  It's all CSG with inverse
> kinematics, although meshes would be much faster.  Just a macro with about
> seven parameters to place and orient the lamp.  Can something like this be
> posted to the object collection, or would someone feel the need to go alert the
> lawyers?
> 
>  - Ricky

I've got a lamp pretty much just like that. If you like, I can take some 
pictures of it and you can change the model enough to no longer resemble 
some company's mascot.

It might be too close to someone's logo to post that lamp with the ball. 
But change the shape of the lamp's base and the lamp it self wouldn't be 
a big deal. A quick search of the big box stores webpages found several 
lamps just like that one. Googleing for 'architect lamps' found dozens 
of them.

My opinion, as a non-expert in anything legal, make a demo picture that 
doesn't resemble Luxo and if the code is all yours then there isn't a 
problem at all.

Post a reply to this message