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? These sort of questions have
been cropping up recently in my mailbox, so I'd be interested in hearing
what people think, for instance, of GPL
(http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html), Creative Commons
(http://creativecommons.org/) or other similar systems in the particular
context of POV-Ray models and scripts.

Of course, people who are both POV-Ray users and lawyers specialised in
international IP law are particularly welcome!

G.

-- 

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

Post a reply to this message

"Gilles Tran" <tra### [at] inapginrafr> wrote in message
news:40e40825@news.povray.org...
> 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? These sort of questions
have
> been cropping up recently in my mailbox, so I'd be interested in hearing
> what people think, for instance, of GPL
> (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html), Creative Commons
> (http://creativecommons.org/) or other similar systems in the particular
> context of POV-Ray models and scripts.
>
> Of course, people who are both POV-Ray users and lawyers specialised in
> international IP law are particularly welcome!
>
> G.

I like the "Choose Liscense" form they have. this came up with what I
selected: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ although this
sounds reasonable as well http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/

what about filing for a copyright in your country? is that usefull in any
circumstance? i think it only costs $30 in the US.

Post a reply to this message

in news:40e40825@news.povray.org Gilles Tran wrote:

> what people think, for instance, of GPL
> (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html),

I don't like it at all. The anarchist in mee sees it as "fighting back"
with the same wapons, the anarchist in me doesn't like fighting at all,
the anarchist in me is quite strong. 

> Creative Commons
> (http://creativecommons.org/) or other similar systems in the
> particular context of POV-Ray models and scripts.

The site only loads half for some reason. I think Greg mentioned it
once, I had a look then and it all seemed complicated then, but I don't
remeber exactly. 

As a user of models, I'd prefer something Public Domain, BSD or MIT
like. As a supplier of models / includes etc. I prefer Public Domain. 

Ingo

Post a reply to this message

"ingo" <ing### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:Xns9519B365D252Bseed7@news.povray.org...
> in news:40e40825@news.povray.org Gilles Tran wrote:
>
> > what people think, for instance, of GPL
> > (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html),
>
> I don't like it at all. The anarchist in mee sees it as "fighting back"
> with the same wapons, the anarchist in me doesn't like fighting at all,
> the anarchist in me is quite strong.
>
> > Creative Commons
> > (http://creativecommons.org/) or other similar systems in the
> > particular context of POV-Ray models and scripts.
>
> The site only loads half for some reason. I think Greg mentioned it
> once, I had a look then and it all seemed complicated then, but I don't
> remeber exactly.
>
> As a user of models, I'd prefer something Public Domain, BSD or MIT
> like. As a supplier of models / includes etc. I prefer Public Domain.
>
> Ingo
>

you wouldn't mind if some model you created was picked up by some animation
house and used in a movie for their financial gain without giving any credit
to you at all? that's not a bad thing, it's just a decision i would want to
make consciously instead of just stamping Public Domain on everything i do.
i don't know the complete details of releasing something as Public Domain in
regards to giving credit to the person who created it.

i don't understand your stance on the GPL, well you didn't really describe
your stance. you just said you don't like it. what makes it so apalling to
you? it doesn't put any burden on the developer really, it just extends the
users rights (and burdens them with the responsibility of providing source
to those they redistribute the binary to, *if* they chose to redistribute
changes) if i understand the premise correctly.

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.

The GPL is not very suited for licensing something else than software 
because of its distinction between use of the program (which is 
completely free and unrestricted) and creation of derived works (which 
are bound to being licensed under GPL as well).  For a mesh or other 
kind of data this difference is not that clear, do you create a derived 
work if you use a mesh in an image? If you use an altered version of the 
mesh somewhere do you have to publish the changed variant?

When licensing data you usually focus on regulations what kind of uses 
are allowed and most often the focus is on how much the author gets 
credited/payed for this use.  For GPL like licenses for this purpose 
have a look at:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OtherLicenses

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.

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).

> 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?

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?

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:40e436ae@news.povray.org Ross wrote:

> you wouldn't mind if some model you created was picked up by some
> animation house and used in a movie for their financial gain without
> giving any credit to you at all?

I wouldn't mind at all.

> that's not a bad thing, it's just a
> decision i would want to make consciously instead of just stamping
> Public Domain on everything i do.

POV-Ray is not everything I do. Also there are thing I do in POV-Ray I 
will never publish, not even in altered form, not even the images. 

> i don't know the complete details
> of releasing something as Public Domain in regards to giving credit
> to the person who created it. 

It means you "can do what you want", no need to give credit.
 
> i don't understand your stance on the GPL, well you didn't really
> describe your stance. you just said you don't like it. what makes it
> so apalling to you? 

To give you an idea, from their FAQ:

"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?


Ingo

Post a reply to this message

"ingo" <ing### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:Xns9519CDC5FC464seed7@news.povray.org...
> in news:40e436ae@news.povray.org Ross wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> > i don't understand your stance on the GPL, well you didn't really
> > describe your stance. you just said you don't like it. what makes it
> > so apalling to you?
>
> To give you an idea, from their FAQ:
>
> "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?
>
>
> Ingo

(hypothetically) you are the developer of a GPL'd library I want to use.
that is good enough for me to abide by your liscense choice. If i don't like
it, I wouldn't use your GPL'd library. It's a reasonable tradeoff i think.
either i'd have to write my own, buy a license to use a library from a
vendor, or find one with less restrictions on use. none of these are any
better really, thankfully everyone is free to chose which suits them.

so do you use GPL'd software? or do you avoid it like the Plague? i'm just
curious how deep your feelings go.

personally, i believe that if someone is going to make money off work I did,
then I should get a little something in return, credit atleast. As far as I
know, BSD and MIT license have a clause similar to that in them (though the
end user may not even need to be using the license commercially in order to
be required to give credit?). If someone is not using my work commercially,
then credit would be appreciated, and if they aren't distributing any
results dependent upon my work, then i don't care if i ever hear about it.

Maybe my feelings are based in a subconcious desire for appreciation.
However, it seems that people would be tempted to abuse things found in the
public domain that aren't well known. By abuse, i mean repackage them
surreptitiously for personal gain.

Post a reply to this message

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).

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

"Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> wrote in 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).
>
>   -Shay

for images, i think the copyright laws in your country might be sufficient
to maintain "mine mine mine" control over them. atleast to the degree that
the copyright laws extend such control. For other licenses restricting or
granting other rights to the user... most image formats contain fields for
metadata, or just plop some words in a text file in the directory those
images exist, or on a web page for those images. i'm not even close to
knowing the real laws on this, but that seems like reasonable action to
reveal your intents.

Post a reply to this message

in news:40e45cdc$1@news.povray.org Ross wrote:

> (hypothetically) you are the developer of a GPL'd library I want to
> use. that is good enough for me to abide by your liscense choice. 

For distributing a modified version of this library, yes. For using a 
library in a program, no. Think POV-Ray and a hypotheticla GPL'd png-
lib.

> so do you use GPL'd software? or do you avoid it like the Plague? i'm
> just curious how deep your feelings go.

Why should I compromise my own freedom, as long as it is software that 
does not make me put its output under GPL I use it.
 
> personally, i believe that if someone is going to make money off work
> I did, then I should get a little something in return, credit
> atleast.

That's personal indeed. For things "POV-Ray related" I couldn't care 
less what anybody does with the code I publish. Just seeing people use 
some of my includes gives me satisfaction enough, getting credit, or 
even money for it dos not make that satisfaction any bigger.
I have no problem with giving credit when using someone else's code, 
it's just a matter of politeness.

> Maybe my feelings are based in a subconcious desire for appreciation.
> However, it seems that people would be tempted to abuse things found
> in the public domain that aren't well known. By abuse, i mean
> repackage them surreptitiously for personal gain.

You can't abuse Public Domain :)

Ingo

p.s. Luckyly some people in France were wise enough to buy the 
photography patents and make them Public Domain. Sadly a highly 
intelligent american inventor was stupid enough to patent every possible 
aspect of his companies inventions, it is in very rough waters now.

Post a reply to this message

"Christoph Hormann" <<mailto:chr### [at] gmxde>chr### [at] gmxde> a
écrit dans le message de
<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

"Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> a écrit dans le message de
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

"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmxde> a écrit dans le message de
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

"ingo" <ing### [at] tagpovrayorg> a écrit dans le message de
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

Gilles Tran wrote:
> ...  so I'd be interested in hearing
> what people think, for instance, of GPL
> (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html), Creative Commons
> (http://creativecommons.org/) or other similar systems in the particular
> context of POV-Ray models and scripts.

I'd recommend talking to the Creative Commons people about
the special characteristics of 3D models, procedural textures,
scene files, etc; and talking to them about any unique needs
about this media.

I'm sure they'd be eager to help, and if necessary, provide
lawyers to draft well written licenses that can restrict
and/or promote whatever level of sharing you/we would desire.


For those who don't know, Crative Commons is a group of
Stanford, Harvard, Duke  law school professors & students
who recognized that the GPL and BSD like licenses have merit,
but don't apply well to other media than software.  They have
lots of top-talented legal professionals who's goal (see quote
from their site below) is to create such licenses that similar
needs of other media.

Note that Creative Commons has an entire section for licenses
for artists: http://creativecommons.org/learn/artistscorners/
including those for works like illustrations, photographs,
movies, music.  You can click&choose different restrictions such as 
requiring or prohibiting "attribution", or forcing "noncommerical" use 
only, or "preventing derivative works", or "share alike" clauses like 
the GPL.  I don't see anything specific to 3D models, so it'd be
worth working with them on a good legal definition of a derived work
of a 3d model.


[quoting their site:
"Unlike the GNU GPL, Creative Commons licenses are not designed for 
software, but rather for other kinds of creative works: websites, 
scholarship, music, film, photography, literature, courseware, etc. We 
hope to build upon and complement the work of others who have created 
public licenses for a variety of creative works. Our aim is not only to 
increase the sum of raw source material online, but also to make access 
to that material cheaper and easier."
]

    Ron

Post a reply to this message