The new XWING Mesh
34 messages in this thread
Star Wars fand should check this out! I have worked pretty hard on this, hard
enough that I hope Lucas can see this so I could get an internship at ILM!!!
Anyway, the file is chase.zip and contains two meshes (an xwing and tie
interceptor). They are pretty good and the file contains all materials needed
to render the scene successfully. If it doesn't let me know.
I am a Star Wars fan and have been compiling a library of Star Wars meshes.
They only get better from these! I am learning how to use 3D Studio at an
exponential rate. Anyway, I have in my SW Library a TIE fighter, TIE Bomber,
TIE Interceptor, Y Wing, X Wing, and an Imperial Shuttle. I am working on the A
Wing, which shouldn't take long, and a Star Destroyer. If you are interested in
getting any of these, let me know, I will gladly send them.
Enjoy.
Thanks for sharing those models, David!
(Just make sure that you never sell those… the Lucasfilm attorneys would go
ballistic if you did.)
– G
Speaking of copyrighting the English language, I hear that Lucasfilm lawyers
are so eager to protect violations of their marks, they'll jump on anything
that looks like a spaceship, and sort them out later.
I'm no lawyer, but I wonder where the line is drawn. If David simply stopped
calling his models "Star Wars", and used different names instead of "X-Wing", I
don't think that's enough. And selling them is certainly one kind of
violation, but there are others – I presume he can't use them in commerce of
any kind, like in an advertisement. Maybe not in a demo reel… or any
corporate video that's shown before an audience… or a Siggraph film.
And how can you determine when a model is sufficiently different from the Star
Wars model? Certainly the Star Wars artists were once given the command "fill
this region of space with various-shaped Rebel ships" and they explored the
gamut of what they thought people would think looked like space-ships. They
even threw in a tennis shoe in some scenes, I hear. When does a TIE fighter
become a TIE fighter? You could caricature it in a dozen ways… does that
still count as a violation?
There's a lot of interesting questions here!
As I can read, you have really terrible problems with copyright in USA. In our
country, you simply cannot protect 3D mesh. I consulted this problem with my
lawyer and the result is simple. You cannot protect the 3D mesh because:
1) Only meshes really hand-sculpted (vertex by vertex, face by face) can be
teoretically be copyrighted. If mesh is for example the result of 3D scan, the
mesh is not "unique", so there is no possibility to get the copyright. Mesh is
not unique, because several peoples with the same equipment (3D scanner,
computer, software and model) can have same result.
2) If your mesh was hand-sculpted, you need to give evidence (sketches atc.)
PavelK
Pavel,
Your lawyer's premise is unfounded and shows his total lack of understanding
about 3D meshes and 3D scanners. It is a total impossibility to get the same 3D
scan on the same 3D scanner even if the scans are done back to back. The
technology simply does not work that way. Regardless of what your lawyer says,
mesh entities are extremely unique and can be copyrighted. This aspect goes far
beyond the "look and feel" aspect of copyrighting. A mesh is a very unique
entity that can easily be defined by it's point relationship in 3D space.
Paul
The problem is, that the whole law system in our country is totally different
from american one. The whole system is based on the exact list of things which
are prohibited. In anything is not written in the list, you are free to do it.
Grrr, my english is so weak and I'm affraid that my explanatory is not very
clear, so I will try to give you the example. Four years ago, in our copyright
law was not written that this law can be applicated to computer programs. So,
it was possible freely distribute copyrighted software. Now, we have words
"computer programs" written in this law, so you cannot copy/sell/use commercial
software. But nothing like "meshes","models" is not in this list. BTW, because
in this list are not written words "DATA" or "DATA ENTITIES", computer data are
not copyrighted too. The whole law system is so different, that I don't know if
you fully understand. So, the question if meshes are copyrighted or not doesn't
depend on the knowledge of my lawyer. It is written in the thick book where
laws are written.
PavelK
P.S. I hope that my poor english was clear.
Pavel,
<<P.S. I hope that my poor english was clear.>>
Don't worry you've made it perfectly clear. I reckon that many people will
think twice before selling their software to eastern Europe after reading this
revelation. I am sorry to be blunt but your legal system needs another Velvet
Revolution. 3D meshes can be copyrighted in the US and many other civilized
countries in this world. This is intellectual property we are talking about
and I think that your law books need to be changed. If you want to work with
the West that is.
Kassia Buchwald (Bitmap Studios Ltd.)
>revelation. I am sorry to be blunt but your legal system needs another Velvet
>Revolution. 3D meshes can be copyrighted in the US and many other civilized
>countries in this world. This is intellectual property we are talking about
>and I think that your law books need to be changed. If you want to work with
>the West that is.
You are right. But the problem is, that neither me, nor any other peoples which
I know is making laws. BTW, the basic law system which I described is in our
country since 1918. Only phrases in the law books are changing time to time. So
this is a tradition and nobody will change it. But I prefer our law system, not
the American one (of course I know american law system only from books/films,
so I can be wrong). For copyright problems, maybe the american law system is
better, but for crimes, etc. I prefer ours. After all, the problem with meshes
is only a problem with the right phrase in the right book.
PavelK
<<But I prefer our law system, not the American one (of course I know american
law system only from books/films, so I can be wrong). For copyright problems,
maybe the american law system is better, but for crimes, etc. I prefer ours.
After all, the problem with meshes is only a problem with the right phrase in
the right book.>>
Shall I cry or laugh? I suppose you learn how the American business works from
the "Dynasty"…
<<>Publicly admitting that you've got objects of unknown origin is a good way
to >damage your reputation or rather what's left of it.
???????
>>
You said that you had meshes from a BBS but didn't know who created them. It is
a standard practice to include a description containing the name of the artist
and some way of getting in touch with him. It is also common for the BBS
carrying files for downloading to include description of each file. If you're
saying that you have meshes that you don't know who they were created by then
don't expect people like me to treat you seriously.
How can you dare to use meshes without knowing who created them and without
permission from the artist? In the West you have to pay for somebody's work if
you want to use it, unless explicitly stated otherwise.
It so happens that I am involved in creating 3D meshes for a living. I would be
very angry if someone distributed work created by me or my employees without
permission and without paying for it. It would end up in court.
BTW. I friendly suggest that you attend a good English course. It seems that
you have problem understanding some messages here.
Kassia C. Buchwald (Bitmap Studios Ltd.)
>Shall I cry or laugh? I suppose you learn how the American business works from
>the "Dynasty"… Better to laugh. But I am sure that I know much more about
american laws than you know about laws in Czech republic.
>You said that you had meshes from a BBS but didn't know who created them. It
>is a standard practice to include a description containing the name of the
Yes, the description like "Another nice car mesh" or similar. Includig the full
description and author's name is a good practice here on CIS. But a majority of
European BBSs has only one-line descrition of file and archive files are
without any .TXT file
>by then don't expect people like me to treat you seriously. OK, don't take me
seriously if it will satisfy you.
>BTW. I friendly suggest that you attend a good English course. It seems that
>you have problem understanding some messages here. Yes, I know that my english
is not very good, but I think that I'm able to understand everything. Look, if
you have other opinion on several problems, OK. But I really don't know why are
you trying to insult me. I think that will be better to stop our conversation.
BTW, during last four years, I met a lot of "managers" from US and West Europe.
They came to our country, full of ideas how they "show us" the right business.
But in 90% cases, the result of their "management" was the bankruptcy. Large
computer/software producers was the first who observed that for the Czech
market it is necessary to have Czech managers. Not only the market, but the
whole life and the way how peoples think is completely different. Best regards
PavelK
<< But I am sure that I know much more about american laws than you know about
laws in Czech republic.>>
Maybe… So far you haven't convinced me about this.
<<Yes, the description like "Another nice car mesh" or similar. Includig the
full description and author's name is a good practice here on CIS. But a
majority of European BBSs has only one-line descrition of file and archive
files are without any .TXT file>>
I am positive that the meshes you're talking about have been stolen (probably
from ViewPoint). No self respecting sysop will allow unidentified files on his
system.
<< Look, if you have other opinion on several problems, OK. But I really don't
know why are you trying to insult me. I think that will be better to stop our
conversation. >>
I didn't mean to insult you. I'll gladly stop this conversation.
<<BTW, during last four years, I met a lot of "managers" from US and West
Europe. They came to our country, full of ideas how they "show us" the right
business. But in 90% cases, the result of their "management" was the
bankruptcy.>>
I am not trying to teach how to do business in your country. I'm merely
pointing out that you should not expect Western companies to work the way you
do.
<< Large computer/software producers was the first who observed that for the
Czech market it is necessary to have Czech managers. Not only the market, but
the whole life and the way how peoples think is completely different.>>
So I noticed.
Kassia C. Buchwald (Bitmap Studios Ltd.)
HI Paul,
I doubt very much someone making a mesh from scratch would ever get it exactly
like another, anywhere. If there is one more face, or vertex, then it is
unique. Assuming that 99.9% is NOT like the one you are comparing it to. A very
interesting subject. – Just like song writing.
I guess the discussion will get more complicated as time goes on!
Mark
Actually, I think the situation is the same in the USA. You can copyright
almost anything on paper… you could do a hex dump of your 3DS file and send
it to the Copyright office and they would accept it. Whether it stands up in a
court contest is another matter, of course. I can't imagine how any model data
could be determined to be the same or not, but perhaps I'm being too technical.
Perhaps the law admits concepts like "reasonable likeness" and "substatially
similar," except I can't imagine how that would apply to something like an
automobile model, which is presumably someone else's (Ford, GM, etc.) data to
begin with.
There are many sorts of reduction or randomization algorithms that could take
one person's data, massage it, and turn it into something that couldn't be
produced in the same way again.
See my previous message. In our country, the "look and feel" principe can be
applied to computer programs, but not to something like data or meshes. Data
are not included in our copyright law. So, 3D Studio is copyrighted, but
3DS files are not. So, if you want to sell .3DS files, distribute them via BBS
etc., you can. The only exception (but very weak) is the following situation:
I'am the 3D artist and I have the contract with you, as my customer. In our
contract can be the phrase about something like "All meshes and pictures which
are the results of this contract and are sold to the customer cannot be
distributed to third party". If this is written in the contract, I cannot sell
the file/mesh/picture twice. But if I will adapt the mesh which was sold to you
(I can add one vertex), I am free and I can sell them to the other customers.
BTW, if I will sell the meshes (without modification) which was written for you
under conditions of our contract, you can accuse me. But the trial will be
based on bussiness law, not on the copyright or crime laws. So in the best
case, I will be sentenced to pay your damage. But, it will be necessary for you
to demonstrate your EXACT damage. And for example loosed customers in the
future (if you are the vendor of meshes) is not EXACT damage. I hope that you
understand the base of the problem. My english really is not good for such
messages.
PavelK
You have a company that is making meshes for sale, right? (Or perhaps my memory
is faulty.) If so, how are you planning to protect your meshes from
redistribution in Europe?
I think our laws here in the US do make some statements aboutt the protection
of data: for example, I believe courts have ruled that the telephone book,
being an unoriginal collection of data, is not protected.
I have a computer company, but my company is basically networking company.
Beside this, we are the manufacturer of measuring instruments for fibre optics
and metal cables. Third division is a Autodesk Multimedia Developer. We started
to develop some IPAS modules, like Free Form Deformations and SANDRA (realtime
preview for Matrox MGA cards in 3D Editor). But this divison is the smallest.
Actually there is one people in this division, me <g>. I am developing IPAS
modules only during nights, because during day, I have a lot of dull work as a
director <G>.
So, I have no problem with mesh protection. But if you want to redistribute
your CD in Europe and especially in East Europe, you have a very good chance
according to pricing. I bought your CD, because meshes are cheap. Nobody will
buy Viewpoint meshes here, because they are very expensive. Approx. price for
30 sec. TV animation is around 30.000,- Kc (approx. $1000). At this price
level, the animation company simply cannot buy expensive meshes. So there is
only one possibility for such company, simply copy them, download them,
exchange them etc. The same situation was four years ago with software. The
situation on the software market changed, because software companies had (and a
lot of them still have) special prices for East Europe. For example Borland C
was around $50 etc. Hardware manufacturers and distributors had special prices
too. These companies got a large market share and today they are the leaders on
the market. This is the bussiness point of view.
To be continue…
(I must've been thinking of Jacek Artymiak regarding the mesh development.)
As for copying Viewpoint's meshes, I'd say the "only answer" is that if you
can't afford them, don't buy them, but don't copy them, either. Why use the
differences in laws to prevent you from doing what's right?
>As for copying Viewpoint's meshes, I'd say the "only answer" is that if you
>can't afford them, don't buy them, but don't copy them, either. Why use the
>differences in laws to prevent you from doing what's right?
You are right. BTW, I am not copying VP models. Actually, as far as I know, I
have no VP model. I downloaded several complex models from several BBS, some of
them are maybe VP, but I don't know. My work in 3DS is technically oriented
(IPAS development etc.) not artistically oriented.
PavelK
If you've got some transcripts of the file listings from European BBSes that
contain meshes, you might want to send them along to Viewpoint to assist them
in fighting piracy of their models.
<<BTW, I am not copying VP models. Actually, as far as I know, I have no VP
model. I downloaded several complex models from several BBS, some of them are
maybe VP, but I don't know.>>
Publicly admitting that you've got objects of unknown origin is a good way to
damage your reputation or rather what's left of it.
Pavel, I suggest you study the following book: Michael F. Flint "A User's Guide
to Copyright" published by Butterworths. That's one of the books about
copyright that I would recommend you start with. It is also quite clearly
written and you should have no problem understanding it. Consider it friendly
advice.
Kassia C. Buchwald (Bitmap Studios Ltd.)
Thanks for sharing this with us Pavel. Its sad to see that some things never
change in the good old Easter Europe 🙁 It seems that the value of work done
using your brain is still pretty low over there…
Jacek Artymiak (Bitmap Studios Ltd.)
>Thanks for sharing this with us Pavel. Its sad to see that some things never
>change in the good old Easter Europe 🙁 It seems that the value of work done
>using your brain is still pretty low over there…
Yes, you are right again. The value of brain work is terrible low. I hope that
this will change, but it will take a long, long time.
PavelK
<<Yes, you are right again. The value of brain work is terrible low. I hope
that this will change, but it will take a long, long time.>>
I feel sorry for those intelligent programmers (and others trying to make a
living using their brains) in Eastern Europe. I wish them well.
Jacek Artymiak (Bitmap Studios Ltd.)
Personally, I think the best way to avoid litigation is to create original
work.
– Jack
I agree… but I think it's also important to note that your original work
might be considered an infringement. For example, if you fulfill the client's
wish to "make this look like Bladerunner" or "make the Death Star shoot lasers
at the company logo." It's tough to guess at how you might incur the wrath of
Lucasfilm's protective agents. You might be turned in by a competitor. Your
animation might be in very limited circulation, but it might be viewed by the
wrong person at the right time. As I said in another message, it's tough to
know the line in the sand on this issue… really, Lucasfilm could sue you if
you have any sort of spaceship that their lawyers are willing to bet will be
considered "similar" by a jury.
It's possible to create original works that emulate the _style_ of another work
without copying it. However, if a client forces you to _copy_ another work,
you're no longer being original–regardless of how it came about. As for
Lucasfilm suing for copycat spaceships, I think there's plenty of available
fantastic shapes that one can throw together as a spaceship without resorting
to the Lucasfilm look (which is really a smudged and dented offshoot of the
2001 look). Eventually, some artist will come along with an innovative visual
concept for a space ship (in movies or whatever) that catches the public fancy,
and we'll look back those old Star Wars/Star Trek/ etc. vehicles with their
thousands of tiny lights and jumbles of illogical but techno-impressive panels,
cables and surface rococo as charming styles from the past–just as we view the
smooth, chrome bullets of Flash Gordon and "Destination Moon" today.
– Jack
I always thought a shape like the Borg ship made just as much sense… 🙂
Right. A cube is always nice.
– J
>>I'm no lawyer, but I wonder where the line
>> is drawn. If David simply stopped calling
>> his models "Star Wars", and used different
>>names instead of "X-Wing", I don't think that's enough.
I've been following this discussion, and decided that it's time to speak up. I
know a fair amount about copyright law. With meshes, the principle is fairly
simple. You cannot copyright a style of a common thing – a car, a font, a
plane. You can create a car design that looks just like a '57 chevy, and as
long as you don't use the word 'Chevy', you're legally ok. That's why we have
44 different names for fonts that look the same right now, the names can be
copyrighted but the styles cannot. So you can get full page blowups of a font
and digitize them (manually) and create a font that you can legally sell. A
spaceship mesh would be treated the same way. If you call your mesh a 'space
fighter ship', even if it looks just like an X-wing fighter, you'd never lose a
court case. The Lucasfilm attorneys might bankrupt you by keeping you in court
for 50 years, but that's another issue. Their attorneys might try to argue that
a spaceship is more art than design and try to get that kind of copyright
infringement… but because of the arguments you yourself brought up, I don't
think that would fly.
Fonts are a special confusing case, I think. They're utilitarian objects,
which has hampered their protection in the past. Shades of people claiming to
copyright or patent the letter 'e'.
I've encountered a counter-example to what you're saying. Lucasfilm *did*
contact us because they claimed that some of the space-ship models in our print
advertisements were in fact properties of Lcuasfilm. No names were attached to
the models, in fact, the images are quite small and lost in the sea of
thumbnails, each less than 1/4 inch square. They circled the offending objects,
including the Death Star (meaning their properties probably encompass apples,
oranges and plums) and several space ships that were pure invention, not
related or even inspired by Star Wars. The letter we received was not from a
lawyer. I do intend to remove the use of their specific names from our
catalog, and turn them to generic descriptions – and I may refrain from using
any space-ships in future ads.
>>Fonts are a special confusing case, I think.
No, all designs of their nature are included. Another example of this would be
the cheapo copies of Countachs you see in build-it-yourself car magazines. They
can legally sell a car that looks just like a Countach, as long as they call it
a "Ferret 500" or somesuch, and there's no law against it. A spaceship might be
a stretch on this law, because they are relatively new. I think the law that
might be applied in this case would be more like copying the Batcar, a
fictional vehicle.
>>I've encountered a counter-example to what you're<<
>> saying. Lucasfilm *did* contact us because they<<
>> claimed that some of the space-ship models in our<<
I'm not surprised. They certainly have the right (and the money) to sue.
>>and several space ships that were pure invention, <<
>>not related or even inspired by Star Wars. The letter<<
>>we received was not from a lawyer. <<
Must not have been from a science fiction junkie either, judging from the
spaceships they picked! Well, in legal actions, plaintiffs usually claim
everything and let the trial sort it out. They figure if they lay down 14 tons
of complaints that some percentage will stick…
>> I do intend to remove the use of their specific <<
>>names from our catalog, and turn them to generic<<
>>descriptions – and I may refrain from using any space-ships<<
>> in future ads.<<
I think that this is appropriate. If you change the names and keep them out of
the ads, you should be legally ok. If the heavies at the company that produced
a film that inspired the mesh want to be evil they can still sue, and keep you
in court for years (as punishment in itself, since they would probably
eventually lose the case). So that's the only thing really left to consider.
Regards,
Jim
David,
<< If you are interested in getting any of these, let me know, I will gladly
send them. >>
Adesk was recently asked to *remove* all star trek related meshes and images
off of our libs.. Not the same as star wars but…
HI David,
send them up to CompuServe, I'm sure lots of people will download them
Mark
David,
I have the head of a 2 legged Scout Walker, but never finished it. The main
reason was all the legal stuff. Be very careful on where and when you use your
prized models..
Other than that, I'd love to see them.
JNJ