#Copyrights & Ethics
26 messages in this thread
Hi everybody, John E., John F., Rachel, Gus, Paul et al.
After reading all the message fire about ethics and copyrights issues,
i have decided to jump in with my opinion (which based in facts, no
emotional response). I don't want to torch again the gun powder, but
I think that all you ladies and gentlemen are quite wrong with this
issue, and certainly there has to be MORE than the eyes can see if
you all act in this wild way.
Let's make some assumptions:
1.We are in a FREE market. That's clear for all of us.
2.In this hard and wild world, EVERYONE can make products, market
them,
3.Here, in the capitalist world, we have a thing called COMPETITION,
which is based in many things, i.e. the scarcity (base of the
Neoclassic economics). So many people with the same class of product
or with products based in the same idea, can market them, get a
market share and compite with each other.
Ok, sorry for the basic economic discurse 🙂 Now, if we look to this
case, the point is clear: there is no point to discuss about. Are you
all crazy or what!? I don't care if Rachel had first the idea of
mesh people, if John had it first or who is first, the egg or the
chicken <g> The fact is that anybody can make and market mesh people,
because, and sorry if someone think that this is too hard, 3d mesh
people is not a very original idea and for sure, any special discover
by anybody. There has been people in architectural renders, worse or
better, a lot before 3ds ever existed in the mind of the Yost Group.
And you are talking about attorneys and court… it's like saying that
IBM will sue all clone makers to make machines based in the PC
concept. Or if Xerox sue Apple for the concept of the MacOS GUI and
the mouse. If Apple had not win over Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard in
the Windows-NewWave-MacOS case, do you think that the simple *PUBLIC*
idea of 3d people for architectural renders are subject of court
treatment. No matter John had seen Rachel people before make his
people. I don't need, and anybody need, and help to realize what a 3d
people has to look in our computers. In fact, I don't understand the
idea of buying 3ds mesh people when I have the tools to make the
people myself! (yes, I know that for me it can look ridiculous, but
others don't have the time to build the meshes theirselves).
I have a question:
Does anybody thinks that there has to be only one product class from
one manufacturer/developer in the 3ds third party market? No, my
dears. Nobody have the rights over the idea of a sun path program or
a 3d threes program. Nobody. But all of us, as the client, have the
right to choose the program or product I want, from the Yost Group,
from Schreiber, from Pyros, from Rachel, from John or from ACME.
Could be for the quality, the final results, the price… but I want
to have there the choices, like when I go to buy a computer, a car or
an stereo.
This question doesn't "stink", there is simple no question. If there
are other "reasons" for this rage, please tell me. If not, I think
that you all are a little lost in copyright land.
HOWEVER, someone has raised another question here: the ethical side.
Again, I think that some of you had been a little impulsive.
Specially, when all of you assume their own "known" parts as
universal truths, and don't know, like me, the case from both sides.
I think that this is more an emotional issue than a ethical question.
My personal opinion is that here here are no UNETHICAL behaviour
(seeing what has happen in the forum). Moreover, since this 3dpeople
is not a Rachel idea, I can't see how John can act in an improper
way.
What I see as improper behaviour in a public forum are all this
personalized public attacks and crossfire. Too many strong words that
I think don't do anything good to the 3ds community. Nobody need
unbased accusations all over the place. In other words, be less
emotional and expose the facts.
That's all. Thanks for read this message.
Well Ana, I couldn't agree more and the next time my keyboard starts
getting a little too HOT, you have my permission to dump a bucket of
cold water on it 🙂 (But by all means spare the computer!) -JE
I am still surprised that 3d people, furniture and meshes in general
are a marketable item. I actually thought that meshes would be
swapped right and left on this forum. I guess the competition between
animators causes a need? I'd be interested in swapping meshes with
anyone out there – how 'bout you?
Interesting that you should mention that, I suppose that for some
people who work with animation as a hobby, that would be the
inclination. For people who have alot of work to get done, there
really isn't the time to build all the meshes they might need. And in
terms of manhours spent building furniture for instance, its alot
more cost effective to buy it prebuilt. In the past most people doing
animation where doing it as a business and so the previous statement
applies, but with the recent affordability of animation to a much
broader market, there seems to be alot more people getting into it
for the sheer pleasure of it. But then I think those people are also
more inclined to want to learn how to do it themselves, and are happy
to spend the time. Also it would seem that model building is a form
of self-expression. If you have any other insights into this, I would
be interested to hear them. -JE
I'm building a set of people that _nobody_ will want in their
architectural animations, although I think they are conspicuous by
their absence. I'm calling them "reject people". They are the
unwanted, social outcasts that most people would rather deny exist.
They will be high-face count and slow-rendering to discourage
marketability – in fact they will be the antithesis of "people for
people" and "3d people". It's too early to be specific about the
categories because they come to me in my dreams and many are still in
the concept stage. Some might say it's dangerous for me to be even
talking about my idea, since I don't think anybody would be foolish
enough to be influenced by it.
Maybe this falls into the "self-expression" category you mentioned.
Martin, marketable or not they sound fascinating. And I love a good
cause. How about you round up your "reject people" and I will build a
home for them. And anyone else out there who has some furniture or
other accessories that didn't turn out quite right can donate them.
And we could build and enter this scene on its "self-expression"
merit so that they will no longer be denied. -JE
>> How about you round up your "reject people" and I will build a home
for them. And anyone else out there who has some furniture or other
accessories. <<
A home would be interesting, but I see these "undesirable" people as
the type that would be seen on downtown city streets, shopping malls,
airports etc, but of course architects _never_ shown them in their
renderings. Many of them are homeless, you see and if they did have a
home they would probably be no rules and everything would have to be
very freeform for them to hang with it.
Yeah, I lived in one of those homes once, you know, wooden crates for
furniture, Kerosene lamps for electricity, (they didn't work too good
cuz we didn't have any kerosene, but they looked nice on the peach
crate end tables) Sure, I can see the whole thing now,,,,,,,,,,,,,
And the streets, oh yes, what a scene, the Reject People on the
street getting Rejected and Rejecting. You'll need some friendly
policemen though, many Reject people end up in the brink just cause
they have no identification or money, (whichever comes first)
>> And the streets, oh yes, what a scene, the Reject People on the
street getting Rejected and Rejecting. You'll need some friendly
policemen though <<
Oh yeah, I had already imagined a policeman trying to enforce law and
order in the face of daunting odds.
Touche, Martin.
John Tissavary (La Luna cie)
Hey Martin! I want one of those slow rendering social outcasts folks for my
slow rendering anti social animations, WOW! What a concept! Keep Dreamin'
>> Hey Martin! I want one of those slow rendering social outcasts
folks for my slow rendering anti social animations, WOW! What a
concept! Keep Dreamin' << Watch this space (forum) for details as the
unfold….
John, Your latest comments gave me an idea to share with the forum.
In the video producers arena we often seek out sponsors for financing
an in house project. The sponsors get the exposure and the video
producers get something to use in the video. eg. When I started
producing my Video Cave Maps I sought out diving equipment mfg. for
sponsorship indorsements. I received loads of diving equipment worth
lots of $$$ just to have the stuff seen in the videos. In the
animation modeling bottleneck to project completion I thought we
could do the same thing. Using your furniture for example gave me
the idea. I have a client that creates cad models of their furniture
line in acad and 3dstudio which I build into an animated "walk
through" on VHS video for them to give to their clients. I'm sure if
I had a project needing furniture to outfit an office building I was
working on for a different client I could get permission to use their
models just for the endorsements. I then could bid the office job
lower because I had all the models of quality furniture I needed.
Thanks for the idea.
PS: a note for John Foust: I know your following this thread. My
furniture client loved the carpeted floor I did using your 0142.gif
texture map tiled from the Syndesis CD-ROM. How about free upgrades
for indorsements? No matter, I'll probably be sending you some of my
models anyway, I do a little bit of that too.<g>
Don, that's sounds like a real workable idea, they'd probably give you
the furniture in fact, much like the PPG people give away blocks for
use in AutoCAD of their Windows and Doorframes. The idea behind this
is that clients see them in the architectural drawing and think
that's what I'd like to have in my home, office etc. Good thought and
your welcome. -JE
I put it to my furniture client today and they were very receptive to the
concept.
That's great Don. Always glad to hear when something goes right! <G>
We're going to use Kai's Power Tools Texture designer for even wackier
tileable textures for the next 3D-ROM. In a few weeks, we'll mail
out submission forms for meshes for the next disc. We've had some
amazing offers so far, there are people who are contributing dozens
of very nice models.
I'm looking forward to it. ie your next CD.
Have you seen the 3DSr3 CD? It is very well laid out and has some
very nice models of furniture. I just got my r3 yesterday and
liooked at the CD this AM.
Speaking of 3D-ROM, I'm still having problems with some of the meshes
with missing faces. I resolved the copy protection problem as a
weird dos problem that went away as mysterious as it appeard. It was
adding attrib +r to all my files. I just reinstalled a new
command.com and all is well now. Any thoughts on the missing faces?
PS I think this people mesh stuff has been beaten to death to the
point of obsurdity. We're all getting r3 now and we need to press on
to more important stuff.– Helping each other develop better and
better quality work to advance the state of the art.
I think like you, Robert. I suppose that it's because I always have to be
creative. Well, when it comes to architecture, not creative, but deal with
specific projects from specific clients -different needs- each time, when it
comes to my own personal art projects… the name says it all. The animation
have to belong to the artist, not seconday people (except when there has to be
a team, but that's another story 🙂
When you need something really special (like people doing animations of F-16s
-?-) and you want to save time, that is time for other people meshes (if they
are good enough for you). That's the only way I can understand people meshes:
architects who spend time in their buildings, not the accesories (like make a
real model: you do the main model, buy the accesories).
ana /krazy images
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.
That's my point, John. Competition. Remember Darwin 🙂
ana /krazy images
To me, the issue is that Ellis supposedly secured a free "review" copy of
Rachel's people meshes for a magazine article, and then he soon announced he
had his own line of people meshes. Whether he told Rachel about this
beforehand or not, Ellis wouldn't say, when I asked him. Whether he knew he
was going to do his own line of humans beforehand, he wouldn't say, when I
asked him. If he knew he was going to make his own models beforehand, then I'd
say he had no business reviewing other people's models in a magazine. If he
had these plans but didn't tell Rachel, I think he was deceiving her on
purpose.
And my gut reaction to Ellis's responses was that he did deceive Rachel. If he
wanted to come clean about this, then I think he should've answered every
question aimed at him, openly and accurately. Instead, all I saw was that he
quickly deleted every message addressed to him, and a lot of messages that in
essence said "you're paranoid, I can do what I want, no one has a corner on
mesh people, I don't have to answer that."
No, of course there's no way for one person to corner the market on
minimal-polygon humanoids. Frankly, I'd think there'd be as large a market for
super-accurate, polygon-heavy humanoids. I've never had someone call asking
for minimal people, but I've had plenty of calls for humans with levels of
detail I can only imagine: musculature, tendons, hair, dirt under fingernails,
etc.
John,
This is an edited message I have sent to Greg by e-mail:
(Talking about John relation with Rachel)
"However I don't care about that. I don't have to see the people models of
anybody to come with my people. Of course I can think, "oh, I want to make some
business and there seems to be market for this". I suppose that the thought is
common in modern capitalism society. Ask the IBM clone makers! 🙂 Or look to a
near example: the IPAS routines. There are a competition there, you, Schreiber,
Yost and a lot more of other developers. I'm sure that someone will come with a
natural paint IPAS filters soon, the same way that it happens with Adobe
Photoshop, where lot of third companies are marketing same kind of filters.
That's because that are public ideas. You only can have copyrights about your
code and the distribution of your product. I don't think that it's unethical
that Jesus' brother develop a new IPAS pack that do most of the things that
yours or Yost packs do, but better (or worse 🙂 even when he have seen Gus'
routines and the Yost Group ones".
And if all of this apply to new programs and concepts, think about how basic
and how old is architectural rendering. And after make the building, 3d people
is the first thing an architect/modeler thinks when he start to give it its
dimension".
I see the thing this way. All people know that architectural oriented people
meshes have to be as little faces as possible (because the important thing is
the building) the same way as people know how a oil painting or an old film
looks.
I didn't see Rachel people neither John's, and can't compare them.
ana /krazy images
Again, I don't think there's any problem with anyone developing a
product that's in the same market category as someone else's. In
fact, I'd argue that competition is a good thing, and certainly helps
legitimize any new market. But I don't think this has anything to do
with what smelled fishy to me… that Ellis obtained Rachel's models
with full knowledge that he was going to make his own. And then to
secure a review of them for a magazine, think about what he could do:
say that Rachel's models are bad or even simply plain, and then he'd
come to the rescue with his own models a month later. He couldn't do
much worse.
And again, the same answer. John, I think that you are a little excited with
this. Now that I have heared both parts, I have a clear idea of how this thing
evolved. And I'm still thinking the same way.
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts.
ana /krazy images
Ah the Grande Inquisition by John Foust, lets chop off their heads.
Lets burn them at the stake. I wonder Mr. Foust did you read the
article, no I didn't think so. And you didn't ask me if Rachel knew I
was going to make my own people. She did, and wished me luck,
although apparently she feels differently now. Of is it you that sees
an impropriety. I've haven't really heard much from Rachel at all.
Could this be because she knows what happened, and doesn't care to
comment openly. And isn't it strange that of all her friends out
there, I suppose one could include you, that she choose me to write
the article. Hmmmm, and I hardly knew her. Yes, something is rotten
in the state of Denmark. My mistake was honoring the agreement to
write the article. Because if I hadn't, and by the way she never said
don't write the article, the whole situation couldn't have become
twisted around. I wonder why you protest so much, do you have a
guilty conscious with regard to your CD. Me thinks me smells a rat.
-JE