Greetings!
Welcome to Scifi-Meshes.com! Click one of these buttons to join in on the fun.
Quick Links
CG Artists: Beware Thievery by Practical Model Makers
Jedilaw0
Posts: 0Member
Note: what I am about to discuss involves two people in the garage kit (GK) industry. It is not intended as any statement about the conduct of the many other GK makers, several of which are online friends of mine.
That being said, what happened to me recently does present an issue that CG artists who release their meshes online should be be aware of.
Our resident genius modeler Fractalsponge let me know that someone had apparently made a physical kit out of my set of Death Star tiles, and they were preparing to market it. Now, when I released those greebles (which used to be in the download section here) I specifically stated that they were for non-commercial use only, with proper attribution to me. That way "Fair Use" under U.S. copyright law would protect me (educational purpose, non-commercial). If I were to try to make money on that mesh, which is directly based upon ILM's model of the Death Star surface, I'd be open to suit by Lucasfilm (LFL) and fines of up to $150,000.00. People have approached me before about making models from my 3D work, and I've always refused to participate in unlicensed products.
So along comes this shmuck, Bol loD (AKA Jimi Glance, Photobucket page here who takes my mesh and uses it as the master template for a kit to be sold.
My understanding, based upon statements from "Jimi" is that he had a digital pattern made by Jason Fraser of Yeti Forge Models (Formerly a Resin Illuminati member under TundraYeti, now banned there for theft by deception). Once the model was brought to my attention, I compared it to my mesh, and to screenshots from Fraser purporting to show his having built the file from scratch, and it is absolutely and 100% my mesh that they used.
Here
is the link to pictures that Jimi posted of this proposed kit.
This is my proof that it comes from my mesh (quoted from an RI thread in which Jimi demanded that I prove the mesh was stolen. Start with a digital render of my publicly-released mesh, done by someone over at Renderosity. Some of you have downloaded this mesh from SFM, so you may remember it. The two photos next to it are shots of Jimi's kit, which I've marked up.
This is the image I had for reference when I modeled the mesh. Note the second copy with my personal color-coding.
As you can see, many details are blurred, hence me making "educated" guesses or just winging it. In other words, my mesh is not accurate to ILM's model, not in the fine details. I will show higher-res shots below, which I acquired long after the modeling of the mesh was done, demonstrating just how different my mesh is from ILM's work. There's no way you can start with references of the Death Star tiles and wind up with a mesh exactly like mine. I made too many small changes to things.
Now the first step of proof: comparison of Yeti's editor shots and my mesh.
NOTE: For this comparison, I removed exactly ONE sub-object from the tile shown in the first two images. I changed nothing on the tile in the third other than to remove the duplicates of that shape, as Yeti did. I have duplicated the angle of view as closely as possible. The correlation is EXACT.
And now for the second stage of proof: comparison of high res shots of Jimi's model to my mesh, at the same resolution with the camera angle duplicated as much as possible. For these shots the ONLY change that I made to my mesh was to duplicate tiles, rotate them, and lay them out in an identical pattern to the one shown in Jimi's model. None of the geometry was changed from the downloadable version of my mesh.
The correlation between the mesh and the model is 100%, with the exception of some very, very small greeble squares on the mesh, which wouldn't have been picked up by the molding process this guy uses. Randomly-placed greeble bits are in the same place. Structures I improvised are duplicated exactly. This is MY mesh, recast from digital form to physical form. Plain and simple.
For the final bit of proof, to show just how inaccurate my mesh is to the ILM model, here are hi-res shots of tiles from the filming model. Note, to the best of my recollection I got these online, but I cannot seem to find them again. If I have shared anyone's private images, please let me know and I will remove them from Photobucket:
Additionally, another RI member (who also frequents SFM) did an overlay between the shots of Jimi's model and renders of my mesh, to show the perfect correlation:
So what does all of this mean for the CG artists at SFM? Well, lots of us make our models available for download. Before the age of 3D printing, the most that might happen to one of us would be for our model to get downloaded and used in a still image or an animation without giving us credit. Just ask Fractalsponge about that one. Nowadays, though, the digital work we've made available can be used by others to create physical models that can be sold, often for hundreds of dollars a pop.
If the model that gets used is an original work, like, say, one of Coolhand's ships (not that he ever releases those, but you get the drift), then the CG artist would have the right to sue for copyright infringement. The model would first have to be registered with the Copyright Office, but that's only necessary for the lawsuit. The copyright itself exists as soon as the work is created ("Fixed in a tangible medium", which includes hard drive storage).
If the misappropriated model is a derivative of some other copyrighted work, like an Enterprise-E model or an X-Wing model, the CG artist can't sue. The work we do here, best case, is protected from being infringement under Fair Use. We have, in effect, non-exclusive licenses. Worst case would be we're infringing with our models, but let's not get paranoid. As non-exclusive licensees, we have no legal right to enforce the copyright in our derivative works. No way to legally prevent a physical kit from being created with our CG models.
But here's the thing: if you create a model and release it online, and it gets used exactly as the basis of a model including all of your minor inaccuracies (all of us, except IRML, have inaccuracies in our work
), there's at least the possible implication that you were part of that commercial venture. In other words, if the kit maker gets sued, you could be dragged in as the maker of the master template. When I learned of the kit in question here, I went out of my way to show, very publicly, that I did not consent, and I had no intention of anyone making money from my model. Ironically, the dumbass who jacked my work tried to offer me a cut if he was allowed to sell his existing stock. I had already said that I'm an IP lawyer, that I even used to work for the firm that did Lucasfilm's enforcement work, and that I didn't want any commercial usage of my model, and this nimrod tries to pay me.
Should you find yourself in a similar situation, with someone downloading one of your meshes and turning it into a commercial product, your best bet is not to accept any money. Otherwise you could be sued, and hit with a hefty fine. Even better, make it clear somewhere public that you did not authorize or condone commercial usage of your work.
There's a certain amount of risk we all take by creating fan art. Fair Use isn't a perfect legal defense, and the courts have been screwing it up quite a bit in recent years. But if you're creating these models for your own education, and not using them commercially, the odds should be in your favor. Please note the word "should", which I've used for a reason. Nothing is guaranteed.
If you release a mesh based upon existing IP like Star Trek or Star Wars, include a disclaimer that the model is for educational purposes and not to be used commercially. It also wouldn't hurt to have a statement that you won't accept any money from anyone for commercial usage, be it in an animation, a fan film, or a physical model. A short .TXT file in the .ZIP archive for your mesh should do.
NOTE: This is a general heads-up comment, not legal advice. It should not be read as legal advice. If you run into a problem, contact a lawyer to discuss your issue, don't rely on anything I've said above. I'm not your lawyer, you're not my client, etc. [/boilerplate]
That being said, what happened to me recently does present an issue that CG artists who release their meshes online should be be aware of.
Our resident genius modeler Fractalsponge let me know that someone had apparently made a physical kit out of my set of Death Star tiles, and they were preparing to market it. Now, when I released those greebles (which used to be in the download section here) I specifically stated that they were for non-commercial use only, with proper attribution to me. That way "Fair Use" under U.S. copyright law would protect me (educational purpose, non-commercial). If I were to try to make money on that mesh, which is directly based upon ILM's model of the Death Star surface, I'd be open to suit by Lucasfilm (LFL) and fines of up to $150,000.00. People have approached me before about making models from my 3D work, and I've always refused to participate in unlicensed products.
So along comes this shmuck, Bol loD (AKA Jimi Glance, Photobucket page here who takes my mesh and uses it as the master template for a kit to be sold.
My understanding, based upon statements from "Jimi" is that he had a digital pattern made by Jason Fraser of Yeti Forge Models (Formerly a Resin Illuminati member under TundraYeti, now banned there for theft by deception). Once the model was brought to my attention, I compared it to my mesh, and to screenshots from Fraser purporting to show his having built the file from scratch, and it is absolutely and 100% my mesh that they used.
Here
is the link to pictures that Jimi posted of this proposed kit.
This is my proof that it comes from my mesh (quoted from an RI thread in which Jimi demanded that I prove the mesh was stolen. Start with a digital render of my publicly-released mesh, done by someone over at Renderosity. Some of you have downloaded this mesh from SFM, so you may remember it. The two photos next to it are shots of Jimi's kit, which I've marked up.
This is the image I had for reference when I modeled the mesh. Note the second copy with my personal color-coding.
As you can see, many details are blurred, hence me making "educated" guesses or just winging it. In other words, my mesh is not accurate to ILM's model, not in the fine details. I will show higher-res shots below, which I acquired long after the modeling of the mesh was done, demonstrating just how different my mesh is from ILM's work. There's no way you can start with references of the Death Star tiles and wind up with a mesh exactly like mine. I made too many small changes to things.
Now the first step of proof: comparison of Yeti's editor shots and my mesh.
NOTE: For this comparison, I removed exactly ONE sub-object from the tile shown in the first two images. I changed nothing on the tile in the third other than to remove the duplicates of that shape, as Yeti did. I have duplicated the angle of view as closely as possible. The correlation is EXACT.
And now for the second stage of proof: comparison of high res shots of Jimi's model to my mesh, at the same resolution with the camera angle duplicated as much as possible. For these shots the ONLY change that I made to my mesh was to duplicate tiles, rotate them, and lay them out in an identical pattern to the one shown in Jimi's model. None of the geometry was changed from the downloadable version of my mesh.
The correlation between the mesh and the model is 100%, with the exception of some very, very small greeble squares on the mesh, which wouldn't have been picked up by the molding process this guy uses. Randomly-placed greeble bits are in the same place. Structures I improvised are duplicated exactly. This is MY mesh, recast from digital form to physical form. Plain and simple.
For the final bit of proof, to show just how inaccurate my mesh is to the ILM model, here are hi-res shots of tiles from the filming model. Note, to the best of my recollection I got these online, but I cannot seem to find them again. If I have shared anyone's private images, please let me know and I will remove them from Photobucket:
Additionally, another RI member (who also frequents SFM) did an overlay between the shots of Jimi's model and renders of my mesh, to show the perfect correlation:
So what does all of this mean for the CG artists at SFM? Well, lots of us make our models available for download. Before the age of 3D printing, the most that might happen to one of us would be for our model to get downloaded and used in a still image or an animation without giving us credit. Just ask Fractalsponge about that one. Nowadays, though, the digital work we've made available can be used by others to create physical models that can be sold, often for hundreds of dollars a pop.
If the model that gets used is an original work, like, say, one of Coolhand's ships (not that he ever releases those, but you get the drift), then the CG artist would have the right to sue for copyright infringement. The model would first have to be registered with the Copyright Office, but that's only necessary for the lawsuit. The copyright itself exists as soon as the work is created ("Fixed in a tangible medium", which includes hard drive storage).
If the misappropriated model is a derivative of some other copyrighted work, like an Enterprise-E model or an X-Wing model, the CG artist can't sue. The work we do here, best case, is protected from being infringement under Fair Use. We have, in effect, non-exclusive licenses. Worst case would be we're infringing with our models, but let's not get paranoid. As non-exclusive licensees, we have no legal right to enforce the copyright in our derivative works. No way to legally prevent a physical kit from being created with our CG models.
But here's the thing: if you create a model and release it online, and it gets used exactly as the basis of a model including all of your minor inaccuracies (all of us, except IRML, have inaccuracies in our work
), there's at least the possible implication that you were part of that commercial venture. In other words, if the kit maker gets sued, you could be dragged in as the maker of the master template. When I learned of the kit in question here, I went out of my way to show, very publicly, that I did not consent, and I had no intention of anyone making money from my model. Ironically, the dumbass who jacked my work tried to offer me a cut if he was allowed to sell his existing stock. I had already said that I'm an IP lawyer, that I even used to work for the firm that did Lucasfilm's enforcement work, and that I didn't want any commercial usage of my model, and this nimrod tries to pay me.Should you find yourself in a similar situation, with someone downloading one of your meshes and turning it into a commercial product, your best bet is not to accept any money. Otherwise you could be sued, and hit with a hefty fine. Even better, make it clear somewhere public that you did not authorize or condone commercial usage of your work.
There's a certain amount of risk we all take by creating fan art. Fair Use isn't a perfect legal defense, and the courts have been screwing it up quite a bit in recent years. But if you're creating these models for your own education, and not using them commercially, the odds should be in your favor. Please note the word "should", which I've used for a reason. Nothing is guaranteed.
If you release a mesh based upon existing IP like Star Trek or Star Wars, include a disclaimer that the model is for educational purposes and not to be used commercially. It also wouldn't hurt to have a statement that you won't accept any money from anyone for commercial usage, be it in an animation, a fan film, or a physical model. A short .TXT file in the .ZIP archive for your mesh should do.
NOTE: This is a general heads-up comment, not legal advice. It should not be read as legal advice. If you run into a problem, contact a lawyer to discuss your issue, don't rely on anything I've said above. I'm not your lawyer, you're not my client, etc. [/boilerplate]
Post edited by Jedilaw on
Additional credits
- Icons from Font-Awesome
- Additional icons by Mickael Bonfill
- Banner background from Toptal Subtle Patterns
© Scifi-Meshes.com 2001-2024
Posts
haha I wish
What this has taught me is not to release anything I cannot control. So only original work will get uploaded. I was about to do a set of videos for 3D Palace showing how to make a Death Star surface. Now my plan is changing, I'm going to do my own stuff in the same style so I can copyright the mesh before the set is released. Then if someone tries the same trick I can wield the Hammer of IP Law and smite them with it.
Hey!:cool: there are lots of my meshes out there, mostly game stuff but all the same, i've donated some to freeware projects, i used to release my other meshes too years ago (before you joined probably) but i got tired of other people (at other sites) saying they'd made them.;) Certain people take the piss constantly so if you can't deal with that, you shouldn't release them, I couldn't so I stopped releasing them.;)
In this case however you'd be way less likely to find an original universe model replicated in this way, who would buy the kit? no one would have the emotional attachment as they might as a treasured, memorable scene from their childhood (like the trench run) people don't buy impractical things like model kits simply as art, but its that emotional link to their favourite starship or tv show. there's gotta be something there to make them part with a significant amount of cash, garage kits can be expensive (and expensive to produce).
Anyway, I know this is pretty ****ty, and i know a lot of these garage kit guys, some of them even post here and they're mostly good guys. But if there's really nothing you can do about it legally, I'm almost surprised it wasn't done sooner. I'm sure this isn't the first time this type of thing has happened and been posted here.
I hope you tried to resolve it privately first, seems this guy is unlikely to admit what he's done - he'll have invested quite a lot of money and time getting it to this stage and wants to see a return. If there really is nothing you can do legally, i guess all we can learn from this is that you can either not release your work publicly or accept that this will happen and not let it bother you (hard to do), and when it does perhaps try discreetly to get as much as you can out of them.
And btw its clear to me that its your mesh, the details are exact. I'm probably an expert digital prototyper today, lots of my work is out there as replicas and kits but really anyone with eyes...
Noone ever nicks my stuff, but if they did it would be fairly easy to prove.
Yeah, I'd be interested in working on original projects, or licensed derivatives. But as you say there's no market for original stuff. And licenses can be very expensive to obtain.
Yeah, I know a fair few GK makers, too, and most that I've met are cool. There does seem to be a tendency for drama in their community, but that's true of all of us, I suppose. I mean, I maaaaaay have even been involved in drama once or twice here on SFM.
Well, I would've, but I was asked about it directly in the thread relating to my mesh. I had revived the thread to announce I was planning a video tutorial set and to ask what kind of things people would want to learn from such a set. Next thing I know, I'm getting asked if I ever authorized a kit from my DS mesh, and shown pictures of this guy's work. I was going to let it rest after saying that I absolutely did not and would not consent to an infringing commercial product using my mesh, but this guy kept denying that his kit came from my work. Then he demanded that I show proof. As I told him a couple of days before posting my images, it's a bad idea to start an anal-retentive fight with a patent litigator. We're basically genetic hybrids of nerds and pit bulls.
Thanks for the support. The really sad thing here is that now I'm getting info that the RI member who originally emailed me privately about the usage of my mesh had been trying to sell my work as his last year. Last time I release anything I don't legally own outright.
Just a second thought though, if the stuff originally belongs to ILM and you've made improvements, then this other guy could be up for the chop if ILM took action.
How big was the real one? I get the impression its about 4 - 6 feet long.
With my model of London that's up on Turbosquid I modified some of the buildings so they spelt out my name when seen from above. It's quite subtle, but since there are no buildings in London that form the shape of the name "John" (or my MYSTERY second name) it'd be pretty difficult for anyone to explain why "their" model had my name abstractly extruded somewhere in the Borough of Lewisham.
YES!!! I have not lost my awesome power of deducing size without a frame of reference!!! :P