1  |   Order by index

Dec 27, 2004, 8:47pm

HI :)

Shrek avatar for sale, $25

View in Image on the avatar list he is number 108 and a model of him is near
the house in Image at 7.09N 0.25E 0.00a 141

Imagine :)

Dec 27, 2004, 9:07pm

I hope noone decides to sue us all one day for ripping off trademarks :O

- MR

[View Quote]

Dec 27, 2004, 9:37pm

Well if they come in here and ask me to take them off the list I will delete
from my object path. Till then I am just doing my own rendition of shrek. It
resembles but I wasn't going for an exact copy and what I am selling is my
own work. I'm not telling any one that it's the original Shrek. Oh well,
lets hope they aren't interested in our low end rwx stuff. :)

Imagine


[View Quote]

Dec 27, 2004, 11:47pm

Well you shouldnt be whinning about the grinch avatar that aw has had for
years??
[View Quote]

Dec 28, 2004, 1:41am

U go girl! :)
[View Quote]

Dec 28, 2004, 3:22am

It hardly has the active marketing being put in by pixar that shrek does now
does it...

'you go girl' might as well be 'im a silly twit but i will say something to
encourage you anyway' unless people actually stop and just check they are ok
with what they are doing model copying wise.

- mR

[View Quote]

Dec 28, 2004, 6:21am

I know this kind of thing has been going on forever in here and everywhere,
seems small-time, but $25 is being asked AND the messenger is being killed
(hopefully her own intent was honorable) for asking a fair question, or I
would not have thought much or said anything about it. Is there not one
person in here who thinks the question a fair one, or is there not enough
honorable people who understands the issue?

An unsolicited, undoubtedly unwanted, opinion, based 100% on fact:

Taking a character or other identifiable (often intellectual) property
directly from a private copyrighted work of fiction such as a book, movie or
song, a work not yet in the public domain, and using that copyrighted
character or other identifiable property for private financial gain, is
absolutely copyright infringement, highly illegal, frowned upon and often
legally pursued by the actual owner of the intellectual property.

Using such a well known item for one's own financial gain, knowing it is
owned by some one or some company made rich by it, is probably often viewed
by the "borrower" in about the same way as when the bank teller accidentally
gives us 100 (place your monetary unit here) too much back when we cash a
check(que) at the bank(que?). We might think; "They won't even miss it",
"They don't need it-they're rich", "they get it off the backs of the poor",
"I deserve it", "I worked for it, too", "I need it worse than them" (."more
than most"), whatever.whatever.whatever..

The chances of being found out in this small time forum by big time owners
of the property are fairly small, but I know for a fact that it is done.

Speaking of this "small-time forum", why, after all, do people here use
passwordable object paths?? Why do object owners/makers here have a right to
own their stuff and lock it up, charge for it's use, but we have free use of
the property of DreamWorks' or anyone else who doesn't know that we are
borrowing it for our financial gain? How can we sell it, but not have to own
it first? It's only an eye-ball copy? Much like when I tried to sell my
eye-balled copy of Leo Tolstoy's "War and Peace"? But anyway-you can only do
that if you have the Modification Right. The modification right (also known
as the derivative works right) is the right to modify the work to create a
new work. A new work that is based on a preexisting work is known as a
"derivative work." I sure don't think Imagine did this with any malice or
sense of "ownership" or "right", but I do think she did it without really
weighing all the possible complications. I am sure many of us are unaware of
what is called a Reproduction Right. (No-not THAT reproduction). The
reproduction right here is the right to copy, duplicate, transcribe, or
imitate a work in fixed form.

By the way-wasn't there a copyright question about AW's use of the term
"Olympics" 2 or 3 years ago? Now THAT seemed petty, but I can't remember the
details.

Anyway-just wondering if there is anyone who understands an issue that
should be as important here as anywhere. Besides, I've been extremely
impressed by some made from scratch objects, and think AW would be just as
interesting with just those.





[View Quote]

Dec 28, 2004, 9:12am

Yes you are quite correct carolann :o/ but I suppose that would go for
almost everything in aw then, that is not scratch made by the person selling
or giving it away, and even then is the copyright already in effect as you
have stated.

How is it that aw can freely display the grinch avatar in Objectd' world for
instance? Or that Luney Tunes martian character ... both well copyrighted
for sure. Now they do this for free yes but copyright must have been
infringed upon in both instances just in the making of them alone. I'm sure
both were probably *found online* and converted to rwx, or perhaps some
talented individual made those also by scratch. I have a spongebob character
that someone made online ... I converted it to rwx ... not sure of the
legalities there, of course I'm not planning on selling it but may well make
it into a usable av for my world.

But yes, you are quite correct. I believe a good majority of aw is built on
such things. As you said, I doubt Imagine did anything in malice ... she
isn't that kinda gal ... and no, Linn asking the ? was not inappropriate
either ... but to ask it of one individual, well it goes much deeper in the
aw soup than one individual ...

LNH



--

[View Quote]

Dec 28, 2004, 3:02pm

[View Quote] Ripping down files?

When it comes to making a profit from their trademarks, it may be a
whole different ball game to taking down files ;o)




Yours Sincerely,
Samuël ML Lison

--
DreamCities.net - A Community for All! (http://www.dreamcities.net)
Contact Me: http://about.dreamcities.net/contact.html

Dec 28, 2004, 3:41pm

[View Quote] but also if she wanted to avoid i she could do what somany spoofers
before her have done, and call him Shrak...>_<

Dec 28, 2004, 5:27pm

Hi :)

I have just changed the name of my work to Shrac. I took all the Shrek stuff
out of my path and replaced it with the Shrac name. Like I said I was
selling my own modeling and wasn't going for exact copies but just the look.

Is every one ok with the name change?

If this is still a problem I will delete the Shrac stuff from the path and
move on. I wasn't trying to start debates or arguements in the news groups.

Imagine


[View Quote]

Dec 28, 2004, 11:45pm

I know, Lady NightHawk :-( and certainly not commented on (by me at least)
solely (or at all) because it stemmed from Imagine's post. There is hardly a
more talented person in AW, whether we're talking about the ideas that come
straight from her brain or when she's been inspired from somewhere else, as
everyone is from time to time--not a shred of offense meant to her in my
statements. Obviously anyone mentioning unsolicited controversial issues
here is about as popular as the teacher chosen to tell the 14 year olds that
they can no longer have sex play at recess. Certainly not a popular or
accepted person, considered to be the enemy and a pariah by most, kept at
arm's length by the other teachers because they don't want to suffer hate by
association (even though they too know it is true), but the information is
real and common sense says it should already be known by anyone old enough
to do the thing being warned against. (DISCLAIMER: I am NOT comparing AWers
to 14 year olds wanting sex. Any similarity between any AW members, living
or dead, and the 14 year olds in my analogy are purely coincidental and
occasionally probable).

AW's own avs and stuff? Yep, who knows if permission was asked and granted.
Once someone made an av for me (not at my request and no payment to or from
me was required) using part of my name and the body of a well-known
character.I was flattered and thought it was cute. No harm done, no loss to
the owner of the character I guess, but they sure had a right to complain if
they wanted to. Too small to even mention? Who gets to decide that? Should I
have been aware of ownership issues? Of course, and so should have the
person who made it for me as a gift. To be honest though, at the time it
never occurred to me. I'm quite sure both Imagine and I, on the other hand,
would ask that anyone using our own intellectual property (objects and
avs --I should be so talented!--, writings, stories, poems, family cookie
recipes, self-made anything, etc etc etc) should seek permission before
selling same (or derivations of) for their own financial gain. Right?

To CP: you say- "Leave "her" alone."? That's not fair, it's a legit subject
and necessary "evil" (?) even here. Not a "debatable" issue; it is what it
is. About your "fair use" comment: the term "fair use" is unique to the
United States; a similar principle, fair dealing, exists in some other
common law jurisdictions. Private use of someone else's property for
financial gain, without permission, is never fair use, fair dealing, fair
game, or any other fair thing. Seems only fair and logical, but not my idea
so please don't yell at me. What if Imagine would have been unaware of this
info, but would have wanted to be made aware of issues compromising how she
was viewed? A person should be able to share nuetral, valid information in
an information-sharing forum without fear of being ridiculed. I sure am
grateful for all I learn here, (and anywhere else) and I bet she is, too.

[View Quote]

Dec 29, 2004, 4:59am

[View Quote] Neither was I. It is not my intention to stop you from doing your work;
just making sure you knew of the *possible* copyright infringement.

No personal hatred towards you or anybody on these newsgroups ;o)



Yours Sincerely,
Samuël ML Lison

--
DreamCities.net - A Community for All! (http://www.dreamcities.net)
Contact Me: http://about.dreamcities.net/contact.html

Dec 29, 2004, 8:40pm

We neither, are trying to start arguments, we are just trying to ensure you
are safe.

- MR

[View Quote]

Dec 30, 2004, 3:13am

I understand that and thank you. So, is there a problem with the name change
or is that copywrite infringement?

Imagine

[View Quote]

Dec 30, 2004, 5:45am

Well, that wasn't directed at me, but I hope it's ok if I give a response.

First, copyright and similar issues are not black and white, but "I didn't
know" is usually not an accepted plea in a court of law, so research is
usually required. Research, to an artist, is just part of the job-and I bet
you knew that. You can be pretty sure that the companies who pay out
skillions to be licensed to sell LOTR shirts, toys, greeting cards, etc etc
etc, don't want anyone else to be able to get in on it for free, no matter
in how small a way.

I personally can't say for sure if your stuff would pass all the tests, but
since you seem to have a talent that doesn't require someone else's
imagination to feed it (just inspire it sometimes), and since LOTR is simply
one man's version of an elvin fantasy, why can't your creations be strictly
products of your own elvin fantasy? Forget where you saw the structures and
people that your buildings and avs represent, name them something 100% your
own and make sure the eyes, doors, whatever-are strictly your own look. Did
you know that George Lucas's Star Wars' were inspired by LOTR? Hard to see?
Not entirely; it's there if you look. But no one could ever possibly call
him a thief because of it. Not sure if the difference between simple
inspiration and something that could be considered copyright infringement
are clarified, but please understand the question is just a question, not an
accusation. By the way-interesting, semi-related, website;
http://www.alleycatscratch.com/lotr/Copyright.htm

CarolAnn

[View Quote]

Dec 30, 2004, 1:42pm

Theres still the grinch avatar thats in Objects'd. I'm sure thats
copywrited.

Dec 30, 2004, 2:02pm

Is it being charged for?

[View Quote]

Dec 30, 2004, 2:25pm

No but can u make a copywrited object and give it away? If thats the case
anyone can copy anything and give them away free. they wouldnt go for that
I'm sure. They were giving away free songs in napster and they put a stop to
that. So free doesnt mean the copywrite was'nt infringed upon. .
[View Quote]

Dec 30, 2004, 3:21pm

Depends who's product is being promoted,

Pixar pays McDonalds to give away their toys in boxes, not the other way
around.

- MR

[View Quote]

Dec 30, 2004, 5:55pm

Of course. The issue isn't exclusive to Imagine, and whoever is responsible
for the Grinch avatar also is accountable for what they produce. I only
commented there because a legitimate question was asked, and the response to
the asker seemed angry. Maybe there was more to it than I knew-like conflict
between the asker and askee. If so-I wish I wouldn't have been reading that
day, because it would have been hard not to comment on that important issue,
something I myself have to deal with from one side or the other sometimes,
but I'd rather I wouldn't have seen it if there was some hidden friction in
the question.

[View Quote]

Jan 6, 2005, 3:28am

as long as nobody uses pixar's $3,000 RederMan servers to create an exact
copy of shrek.. i think its ok.

[View Quote]

Jan 6, 2005, 3:28am

*RenderMan

[View Quote]

Jan 7, 2005, 10:24pm

emm, know this is abit late but, shrek is a dreamworks production, not pixar
O_O least i don't think pixar had anything to do with it?
but ya, doubt they would care much. even though i think they charge like
$25,000 for the usage or somethign?

-SWE

[View Quote]

Jan 7, 2005, 10:28pm

about the olympics thing, ya, some people wanted to do an AW Olympics
events, and alphabit e-mailed the olympics people for the right to use thier
logo and stuff, but they said no, unless they pay royality, and that was a
non-profit thing. so ya, the shrek avatar thing is kinda wrong,especially
for profit, but oh well, it did take time and energy to make.

-SWE

[View Quote]

Jan 8, 2005, 1:15am

[View Quote]
wel lits in the past now...imagine has stopped her work because of such
disputes...she has now switched over...but hwat she did do was
WONDERFUL... there goes another great thing ruiend by ngs...

1  |   Order by index