Planetside has very kindly allowed us (for a small fee) to use their knitting machine. This machine is programmable to make a near infinite variety of jumpers, gloves, hats and scarves etc. I, as a user, can either make up my own knitting pattern from scratch, download one from my local knitting library or buy one from the knitting pattern shop. I can then take apart the patterns, modify them and then produce a new jumper, hat etc. I can also take my pattern to the local library or shop and make it available for others to use, either free or for a small fee.
My philosophical point here is this. The only thing that is "owned" at any point here is the knitting machine. The ability to program it can not be "owned" separately from the machine since that ability is inherent in the machine itself. People can choose to buy or sell knitting patterns but that is purely an agreement between the two parties concerned. If for example I bought a hat pattern and then chose to upload it to a knitting library no crime would have been committed. The pattern is a convenience but can have no intellectual rights associated with it since there is nothing new or different in it from the original patterning ability of the machine.
Hope the above makes sense :) I'm not trying to get at anyone, and I certainly don't want to have any kind of a "go" at the various knitting shop owners who provide a great and useful service.
Thanks
Richard
hats ? gloves ? knitting ?
i could understand the point if only you were using words as nodes, tgd, or even End User Licensing Agreement... but speaking about fashion dressing stuff... that's pretty weird ;D
I'm not wanting to offend or tread on anyone toes ... I'm being allegorical.
;D
Richard
yes i understood... just try this : buy a bag from Louis Vitton, check its pattern and use it to make your own bag. Then, distribue it... we'll see how Louis Vitton will call that attitude ;)
woaaaah i am being allegorical in english ! ;D
Its not quite as simple as that. In your version of the allegory I would be reproducing an end product, the bag. To break the allegory for a moment the end product in TG is an image or an animation and for the bag, the image or the animation that would be definitely copyright theft and treated accordingly. Back to the allegory, buy a bag from Louis Vitton, check its pattern methodology and use it to make your own original bag. No problem ...
Its the difference between "finished product" and selling a "process". In TG the process of joining nodes together is implicit in the program itself, you can not own it. You can own the images, the animations, the output and although you do of course "own" everything on your computer.
For example who owns this? (below) Me, Planetside, this forum, some other group/person who has put together the nodes in the same way? I "think" I own it (I give it away) but "if" it were the same pattern as one that you produced would you have a case against me ... I don't think it can be answered that easily.
:)
Richard
I am not a legist, and you may know that I don't give a f*ck about copyright sh*t so far but, when you buy something from NWDA (the only example I know about) you agree with EULA.
And it says :
- Commercial Use:
If you are a business entity, educational institution, government entity or you use this product in a business or for any commercial purpose, your use of the product is defined as "Commercial Use" if you use any material created using the product, whether directly or indirectly, as part of any software, publication, broadcast, film, public display or print shown outside your organisation. For Commercial Use you must purchase a Commercial License for the product from Vendor. A single Commercial License results in one "Licensed Copy" of the Product. The Commerical Use license should be chosen by all businesses, regardless of company size. The Commercial Use license does not grant the right to distribute or resell our products, or modified versions hereof, with cost or for free.
- Private Use :
If you use the Software personally and not for Commercial Use, your use of the product is defined as "Private Use". Private Use customers do not use our products to create and sell derivate products. The Privat Use license does not grant the right to distribute or resell our products, or modified or expanded versions hereof, with cost or for free.
So... well you must better than I do... but when I buy something under condition, I follow my word... or else, I couldn't watch my face in the mirror without thinking "I am a scumbag full of horse' shit" ;D
I would guess that these questions and problems will continue until there is a protected macro type system in place.
Quote from: RArcher on September 03, 2009, 12:25:09 PM
I would guess that these questions and problems will continue until there is a protected macro type system in place.
yes... "been there... done that"
I have this strange feeling of déjà-vu :)
I'm unaware of NWDA's EULA (there's a mouthful) ~ I too follow my word but that's not the point.
I'm still unclear what is being "owned" in the first place. I did buy the NWDA cloud pack (Cumulus_Pack_V2_2) and it contained no such EULA ... still not my point.
I'm still trying to work out how you can own a process, especially one that is implicit in the software I already own. You can sell anything you like. I could sell you the air in this room if either of were that dumb. No crime would have been committed, but I could not tell you what to do with the air since I never owned it in the first place. You don't "own" the connection of nodes.
I don't see how you can. If you can own a certain connection of nodes that precludes me owning that same connection of nodes which is obviously not the case.
Richard
Quote from: cyphyr on September 03, 2009, 12:37:25 PM
I'm unaware of NWDA's EULA (there's a mouthful) ~ I too follow my word but that's not the point.
I'm still unclear what is being "owned" in the first place. I did buy the NWDA cloud pack (Cumulus_Pack_V2_2) and it contained no such EULA ... still not my point.
I'm still trying to work out how you can own a process, especially one that is implicit in the software I already own. You can sell anything you like. I could sell you the air in this room if either of were that dumb. No crime would have been committed, but I could not tell you what to do with the air since I never owned it in the first place. You don't "own" the connection of nodes.
I don't see how you can. If you can own a certain connection of nodes that precludes me owning that same connection of nodes which is obviously not the case.
Richard
yes... "been there... done that"
I have this strange feeling of déjà-vu ;D
Could you please explain to me how you can own a methodology?
Why on earth would you want to have a "protected macro" system? No one else has one...
Please can you also tell me how the canyon posted above could be owned by myself or anyone else for that matter.
Richard
If your referring to the "Lightening XFrog" incident then I still think your missing the point.
The circumstances were different, the end product was different, he was selling finished trees, not the process to get the trees (which may have blown his cover earlier).
NWDA is selling preset packs, great and thank you. But NWDA cannot own the intellectual copyright to them (or if they can then the law should be changed). These packs are not "that" complex. We're not talking the level of complexity of even a small program. If I produce a clip file or project file that is similar to an NWDA one then how will you prove that I have infringed your copyright? You cant! Especially since I created the same file independently from ever seeing an NWDA pack.
Richard
http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=6497.0
what did I say ? ah yes !!!
been there, done that...
I have this strange feeling of déjà-vu.
what you're circling here could be defined as "Derivative Work" -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work
so in the case of a clip file, you're using a copyrighted work (terragen) to create a "derivative work" (the clip file) that you can copyright and sell etc.
I rarely read EULAs so I don't know if the Terragen EULA even mentions this...I doubt it...
and "Derivative Work" probably doesn't apply exactly but the idea is the same I think....
Y'all listen up here. Stay away from my nodes, ya hear! And don't goin anywheres near the barn with my daughter.
Round these parts a man can get shot just for peeking at somebody's nodes. Sheriff Macro's not around.
We got weapons, strong whiskey, and ten acre's for rendering. Move along and take the lawyer with ya. ;)
or ya'll be hanged, goddamnit ! ;D
LOL ;D
Richard, I'm not quite sure what your purpose of this debate is. You don't seriously think that we would say yeah fine share our stuff, do you?
Here's a more suitable anology for you: when you write a program in C++ and compile it with a C++ compiler, you would reckon that the resulting program is yours. You know people could reverse engineer the code, so as a software vendor, you explicitly write in your eula that reverse enginieering is not allowed.
Now, your code consists of standard programming commands, that you are combining in a certain way.
With your logic applied, anyone could reverse engineer the code and freely share it, *because* it's *just* made of standard commands that you don't own as such. If that would be the case there would be no IP protection for you as the programmer. Whatever business you were hoping to get and make your living would simply be gone.
Our preset packs are the same like a programming language that is using standard commands, combined to deliver a certain end result. The only difference (until to date) is that our little programs or *presets* don't need to be reverse engineered, because they are used as instructions at runtime. Bad luck for us, because it makes it easy for people to circumvent the IP. We chose to go ahead anyway because we trust that people have their common sense together and don't shoot us in the back. We don't own a methodology. We own the preset we have made using the "TG2 programming environment", if you will.
However, there's no law that needs to be changed. The presets are our intellectual property and are declared and protected as such.
In the early days of NWDA, there was a note at the buy now button that said by buying you agree to the EULA, which it linked to.
Nowadays, the eula is included in the packs PLUS you agree to these terms before you can even submit your order. The previous setup , though, is still valid and in effect. Today it's just more visible.
I totally disagree that our presets are too simple. Even if a preset has only a couple nodes (but sometimes over a hundred), ususally weeks and sometimes months of development and testing go into these.
Thanks,
Frank
erased by Seth (useless post)
By the way, Matrix2003, would you mind changing your avatar!!?? It's very disturbing, especially when reading something quite as interesting as these lines about © Thanks.
---Dune
ps. © is a difficult thing. I have something going on at the moment with a client who commissioned me to produce something (with a little of his knowledge) and now thinks he owns the ©.
Quote from: matrix2003 on September 03, 2009, 01:19:49 PM
Y'all listen up here. Stay away from my nodes, ya hear! And don't goin anywheres near the barn with my daughter.
Round these parts a man can get shot just for peeking at somebody's nodes. Sheriff Macro's not around.
We got weapons, strong whiskey, and ten acre's for rendering. Move along and take the lawyer with ya. ;)
:D ;D :D ;D :D ;D
i guess matrix2003 has a "true" render farm.
10 acres of rendering plants... thats alot of processing power.....
Legal definition of a derivative work: " DERIVATIVE WORK - A work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a 'derivative work'. 17 U.S.C. " http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d042.htm
So if you make a new image using NWDA purchases, the image is now your own correct? Does the EULA address derivatives? Face it that is all we do! We tweak endlessly to reach a better image.
If you modify the Louis Vitton bag, you obviously can not call it your creation. But if I tweak a Hero Rock for several months and then hit render for a finished scene, isn't the code or image now a derivative piece which I DO clearly own. NO?
Hi Frank :)
QuoteYou don't seriously think that we would say yeah fine share our stuff, do you?
err yes why not, his issue was with a lighting condition which had nothing to do with the NWDA pack in question, are you accusing me of trying to steal it (I don't think you are :) )
I would in no way claim that the NWDA presets were "too" simple. I don't think I said "too". But they are very much simpler than the C++ and C++ compiler analogy. And the amount of time you put in dose not change how complex or simple something is.
Still no one seems to want to tell me how the file I uploaded earlier is mine. Yes I made it, yes I uploaded it, but its not mine I didn't create it in some way that only I can re-create. If you make a CanyonNetwork similar to mine should I think you have stolen from me, I think not.
I'm sorry but I don't think your presets are your intellectual property; I don't see how they can be, there's nothing original (technical meaning not artistic) there. Maybe "intellectual property" is claimed by simply saying so?!
Maybe I'm just an old revolutionary lol
I just don't get this ownership idea, never have, especially over ideas, methodology
:)
Happy rendering
Richard
Quote from: Dune on September 03, 2009, 01:36:28 PM
By the way, Matrix2003, would you mind changing your avatar!!?? It's very disturbing, especially when reading something quite as interesting as these lines about © Thanks.
---Dune
ps. © is a difficult thing. I have something going on at the moment with a client who commissioned me to produce something (with a little of his knowledge) and now thinks he owns the ©.
My others are much worse ...... ;D I will work on a new one!
Quote from: matrix2003 on September 03, 2009, 01:44:09 PM
If you modify the Louis Vitton bag, you obviously can not call it your creation.
Err actually yes as long as you don't claim its a Louis Vitton bag, if you learnt from the Louis Vitton bag and then created a matrix2003 bag there would be no problem, even if both bags looked similar
:)
Richard
erased by Seth (useless post)
Original post erraised
Oh well I can do that too
erased by Seth (useless post)
Have it your way if you dont wish to see my point.
In the above example it would not be a facsimile, a "photocopy" but a different bag from a Louis Vitton, it would be a matrix2003 bag. A new bag made up from previously learnt information derived from the dissected Louis Vitton. The fashion world relies on making copies, the major fashion houses support it, what you see in Paris you will shortly (very shortly) see in Chelsea.
In your world view it would not be possible to learn anything with out breaking some copyright
Richard
Hi Richard,
copyrights can seem like a strange thing, but actually once you think about this a little bit it becomes quite logical and clear.
I think I understand your thought process here, assuming there are a few things you just don't know. Let me try to explain this.
- Complexity and copyright: complexity is not a pre-requisite for a copyright, unless the subject is totally trivial, like an application that can only print "hello world". The complexity of a tgd might seem little to you, though, while c++ code may seem like a miracle to you (I'm making it up). Vice versa, a c++ developer might think that a certain application is easy to reproduce, while Terragen 2 is beyond him.
- The canyon stuff you have posted is yours, but you will have difficulties claiming a copyright when someone recreates this, because you deliberately and publicly shared it.
- Trying to explain this in simple terms: yes the presets contain intellectual property. The term describes the original intellectual effort that went into making them. It's not *just* the certain combination of nodes, it's also in the custom parameters that combined with the certain combination of nodes deliver a unique end result. With IP it doesn't matter to how much % your subject is artistic, graphic, or technical, it's still your IP. It also does not need to be declared, because you genuinely own the IP by the time you create your subject. IP and copyright is declared to make it clear to others who don't know about these things.
I hope I have been able to clarify these things here Richard. I'm also happy to continue to discuss with you through email if you want.
Regards,
Frank
@goldfarb brought up the derivative issue. Since NO-ONE is going to leave any nodes as original in their renders, than sharing .tgd's should not be a problem.
It would be derivative works. yes or no? I am not suggesting that people post NWDA's work at all ever.
Since we all have quite the collection of clip files and objects etc... If I throw them all together that is a Derivative work and is legal. Correct?
Locking this now since it will no longer make any sense as a stack of posts have been erased ~ shame it was proving very useful :)
Go render something :)
Richard
umm how do I lock a topic lol
Quick Links -> Edit Profile -> Delete This Account ;D
..... :)