CompuServe Messages

I've stayed out of this discussion for fear of talking into buisness that is not my own, but my initial impression was that this was a partisan debate. I have met Rachel on several occasions, and think she is a wonderful, nice person, and has created very clean, good-looking people for architectural use. I know John only through CIS. At first I thought I should take Rachel's side, because I've been burned on ideas before, too, and I know Rachel and all that. But after reading some of the messages in the debate, and getting a clearer, although certainly incomplete picture, I think that intensity of the debate is more emotional/personal than rational and impartial, and I honestly believe this is a case of one person being influenced by another's idea rather than stealing the actual work to make a profit. If there is impropriety that has not been discussed on the forum then that's another story, but I've thought about the thread as I read it, and that's how I feel. I'd hate to think that I couldn't sell a collection of scanned automobile meshes that I might have made just because Viewpoint made some. That would be a monopolistic move, and not what the market in this country is about. I agree with you, Ana, that 3d mesh people for architecture is a common, time-honored idea, and not the sole propriety of Rachel. Naturally, if John outright copied the people and just cheated by moving vertices around (I take his word for it that he didn't), then it would be downright plagarous, and illegel and all that, not to mention bad karma if you believe in that sort of thing. I have been inspired by many animations I've seen, 2D, 3D, and films and commercials, and I incorporate these inspirations and influences in much of my work, both animation and literary. I've made money on some of these works, but do not feel that I've acted out of turn. I've even seen work (published and unpublished litererary, and film production related) that was influenced by my work (the creators have told me so) and was incredibly honored and flustered that someone would bother to copy my idea. I do not consider myself a charity, but also know that I don't have the right to bleed someone for money because they liked my idea and incorporated it in their own work. What exactly went on between Rachel and John, I don't know. I just hope that both can be completely honest with themselves about it, and in doing that I believe that whole mess (legal, personal, whatever) will come to a constructive conclusion.