Copyright Issues Surrounding 3D Shapes and Meshes?

soulhuntre asks: "A well known and respected company creates aftermarket 3D human figures for a popular rendering/posing system. Part of the value of these figures is that a large add on marketplace is thriving for clothing and props that will work with these characters. So far so good. Recently though there has been a controversy around the claims this company is making on what kind of work is derivative under US copyright law, and what they have to be asked for permission for. Can anyone cite any cases that might be of use in figuring this mess out?" It all boils down to how much deviation is allowed for a work to still be called "derivative". Even though a company may still own the models, does that mean they own the clothes, which were made by someone else for that model, used to "dress" it?

"It is a given that if I use their mesh to create a product I am violating their copyright.

It is a grey area in my mind if I use an automated process to make a product that will fit around their mesh; if for instance I take their human into a program like Rhino and let Rhino build a curve network over the surface to use in making my clothing mesh.

It seems completely clean to me to take their figure into Rhino or 3DS Max and hand fit a mesh that will conform to their figure, say in order to make a pair of pants that will fit their character. The mesh is mine, the shape is mine as well - it approximates their shape but their shape is also the shape of a human... not something they can copyright in broad terms.

Then there is the issue of fair use in my mind. The purpose of these figures is to be used with conforming accessories. it is the selling point and the primary goal. The value of the Daz figures is derived in the marketplace from the fact that they are the most popular figure to add aftermarket items to. it seems to me they have no claim that a work that fits on their figure is diminishing their value or revenue."

Comments

Question

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a highly complex, intricate legal question involving several varied areas of law.

I ask this question on Slashdot and expect to get useful answers.

What is my IQ?

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

17

Re:Question

[Hard_Code]

Or:

I send you this post in order to have your advice.

Repeat from K5

[andfarm]

An extremely similar question was recently asked (or attempted to be asked) on kuro5hin.org, and voted out of existence.

I can only wonder how this one made its way here, and what hopes its author has of getting an intelligent reponse.

For the record, it was generally decided that the distribution of 'clothing' meshes would be allowed if:

1. The author of the original meshes did not provide any similar accessories.

2. The original meshes were not distributed in any form with the accessories.

3. The author does not expressly prohibit the distribution of such meshes.

Re:Repeat from K5

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you mean distribution of the clothing meshes would be allowed if any of those three conditions were met, or if all of them were met? Personally I'd hope it would be the former (then again, I'd hope distribution would be permissible anyway even without meeting any of them, so...).

Re:Repeat from K5

[soulhuntre]

Actually, the problem is that point #3 is true - these accessories have been prohibited.

The question is - is that a good thing? Is that a legal thing?

As for why ask on Slashdot - because a fairly large number of peopel here follow copyright issues and it seemed someone might have a link to a relevant case.

Maybe your right, maybe I should have known better. I mean, there isn;t a chance to bash MS for anything so how can it be a good topic for /.

OK Then

[Anonymous Coward]

If I am wearing a Versace suit, then does Versace own me?

Re:OK Then

[Anonymous Coward]

No. He's dead.

Slashdot Discovery

[Monkelectric]

I think we may be able to adapt ohms law to the situation of asking for legal advice on slashdot:

IQ = A / C

IQ drop of poster = Avg Intelligence of Poster / Complexity of problem

As you can see as C rises A is quickly overwhelmed :)

(yes I have an EE midterm next week and yes Ive been studying way too hard)

Well...

[tswinzig]

IANAL, but...

Copyright or License Agreement issue?

[ZahrGnosis]

It seems to me like this is more a license agreement issue than a copyright issue. Copyright law (er... IANAL, btw) is where "derivative work" is defined legally, but it glosses over the whole act of getting hold of something to copy in the first place. The license agreement (that you linked to, for this example) is what you agree to in order to get the model in the first place, and if that limits you to not making clothes from their models then you either agree to it, or don't use their models from the outset.

I don't think their license agreement is quite that thorough but they do go on about derivative works and if you think they may care it's best to talk to them... and probably a lawyer... about the originail intent of their language.

[sidebar: We (the Slashdot community et al) should probably follow those agreements as closely as possible if we want to support things like the GPL in legal arenas.]

Now, legal stuff aside, my personal view is that derivative works or whatnot ought to have allowances for "personal" or "non-commercial" use, but if you ARE making money from such models... even if you hand draw the clothing mesh on the human model itself... you owe something back to the original creators of the human model. After all, it saved you time at the expense of someone else's time, and that person deserves some of your payoff (unless they waive it, for example, by giving their work to the "Public Domain"). Their work had value to you which you couldn't get anywhere else. If they want to charge you for that, I think they should be able to. You can't argue that the uncopyrightable "human form" is all that you're using, since it would presumedly be much harder to achieve the same result (your clothing mesh) without their models.

It'd be great if the rest of the world had the sense of sharing that the Open-Source community seems to have, but it just isn't so.

GPL is not like those agreements

[doconnor]

I think it is important to distingish between the GPL and the end-user licenses.

The GPL is not an end-user license. It is a distribution license. Unless you are going to be providing copies of some GPL licensed software, or a derivative, there's no need for you to pay any attention to it at all, except for the warranty disclaimer.

The basis for the GPL is quite clear in copyright law. Copyright says you cannot copy something unless you have been given premission by the copyright owner. In most cases you have to contact the copyright owner and send them some money. With GPL software the conditions for getting premission to use the software is convently included with the software.

End-User licenses are contracts that people agree to before using the software. They have less strength because no-one ever reads them and there is often no way to back out of the transaction if you don't agree with the conditions of the contract.

Another important difference is the GPL allows you to distrubute the software, under certain conditions, a right you wouldn't normally have. End-User licenses is almost always about removing rights you would normally have.

My point is that the GPL and End-User licenses are very different kinds of licenses and apply to different situations. Disrespecting End-User licenses does no more to reduce the creditabity of the GPL then to does to reduce the creditabity of a car leasing contract.

Re:GPL is not like those agreements

[ZahrGnosis]

I'm glad to learn that the legal standing of the GPL vs. EULAs is different, and that the GPL is on steadier ground. As I said, my direct legal knowledge is pretty much nil.

But I still think, even if only from a PR standpoint, that the two need to be viewed from a similar point of view. It just seems hypocritical to me to support the GPL and denounce the EULA. There are a few similarities which are unavoidable:

First, the delivery mechanism is basically the same, with the same problems. You can never be sure anyone using software has actually read the GPL or EULA attached to it. More people may be familiar with the GPL than with any particular EULA, but that's still no guarantee that it will be understood. Both camps are trusting that including the text somewhere in the software distribution is enough to make it binding.

Second, enforcement and discovery of misuse is practically impossible. Consider the case in point of a human 3d mesh model being used to form virtual clothing, and compare that to using small, derivative pieces of GPL'd code in a commercial app without credit. Chancing across either infraction is statistically almost impossible. If someone doesn't come forth and point it out of their own volition (like our worthy Slashdot poster here), the agreement (EULA or GPL) would be violated.

I see that the two come at problems from separate directions, but I disagree that they "are very different" and "apply to different situations". At the very least they are far more connected than the GPL and a car leasing contract.

It's those two similarities that make me say we should respect EULAs so that we can expect the same respect for the GPL. Maybe we don't strictly need to do this from a legal point of view, but for our own credibility it seems that we should recognize the efficacy of other people's attempts to protect their work as much as we do our prized GPL.

Now, back to work! ...

Derivative meshes...

[cr0sh]

I can see the mess this brings up when one uses a software tool to "automagically" create clothing or other accessories for a mesh (like a tablecloth for a table). It should be a simple matter - it isn't the mesh, it is something separate from the mesh. But look at it from the company's POV:

Say instead of a "suit of clothes", you wanted to instead make a "bodysuit" (shades of "Silence of the Lambs" here) - that is only one step removed from being the mesh, in a way. What is to stop you from "deriving" a +/- 1 voxel position mesh from the original mesh? Nothing.

This is what they are afraid of - in a way, this kind of legal issue is merely the precursor to what will surround nano-assembly systems, if they should come about. It is actually a closer precursor to what will happen in the Rapid Prototype Development community. Right now it is "virtual" - but soon it will bleed into the real.

It is just another example of bits eliminating scarcity, which totally breaks the system of capitalism. A copy is a copy is a copy - but your copy works the same as mine, and you haven't lost anything by me making a copy (except for an ephemeral "potential sale"). Capitalism requires that the control of means of production be separate from the control by the consumers of the goods produced. When the consumers directly control (as opposed to the indirect manner of the so-called "free market forces") the means of production, the system of capitalism breaks.

As production of goods become more dependent on digital design and "bits", this will become more and more apparent. When the goods are the "bits" (ie, nano-created materials, medicines, food, etc), all hell will probably break loose: Capitalists cannot "afford" to lose the control over scarcity, otherwise wealth becomes meaningless (when everyone is wealthy, who is wealthier?)...

Seems like a silly claim to me

[michael_cain]

It seems completely clean to me to take their figure into Rhino or 3DS Max and hand fit a mesh that will conform to their figure, say in order to make a pair of pants that will fit their character. The mesh is mine, the shape is mine as well - it approximates their shape

How is this cleaner than if I scan someone's book, use software to change the fonts and make synonym substitutions? Or read a track from a CD and use software to reverse the LSB in each 16-bit sample? Attempting to claim that those results weren't covered under the original author's copyright would be laughed out of court.

No.

[ikekrull]

I think you would be completely within your rights to create accesories etc. to fit these meshes.

Take, for example, manufacturers of body-kits for cars.

They take a legally obtained example of hondas latest and gayest civic, and manufacture bits of plastic that 'enhance' the cars styling to new levels of obnoxious ugliness for the riceboy crowd.

They don't need permission from honda to do this, their work does not include any honda IP, and they are free to sell these body kits to all and sundry.

I suppose there is no EULA attached to a honda, but the analogy, i think, is reasonable.

Another one might be someone making bags to fit, say a Sony PS2 console. A PS2 was used to determine dimensions for the bag, but Sony cannot claim copyright on every bag that securely holds a PS2.

In your case, imagine holding up the two items in front of a jury. One looks like a person, one looks like a sweater.

There is no easy way i can see to determine any kind of derivation here, and i doubt the court would either.