3D copyright FAQ

[Pamela Galli]

This FAQ from Turbosquid is one of the most comprehensive I have seen.

 

http://support.turbosquid.com/entries/20834781-copyright-faq

 

Copyright FAQ

I downloaded a free model from the internet. Can I sell it or distribute it for free?

No. Even if a model is available free of cost, it is still protected by copyright. You can’t sell it or give it away without permission from the rights holder.

 

I downloaded a model that was published anonymously on a website. Does copyright law apply if the model’s creator is unknown?

Yes. The model is protected by copyright law, even if you don’t know who created it.

 

There was no copyright notice on the model or on the website where I found it. Does that mean no one owns the rights to it and that I can copy or distribute it?

No. Copyright applies automatically from the moment the work is created and exists in some form, such as in a digital file. Copyrights can be registered, but works are protected even if they are not registered. Marking (or not marking) something with a copyright notice does not change its level of protection at all.

 

I bought a 3D model (or got it from a friend or downloaded it free from a website), and I made a lot of changes and improvements to it. It looks really different now. Can I sell it or distribute it for free?

No. That’s called a “derivative work.” That means you took something that was protected by copyright and derived a new work from it (adapted it to make something new). But the copyrights still apply to the original work, even if your changes make the model unrecognizable.

 

What if I credit the creator of the original model? Do I still need permission to distribute my model?

Giving credit is a nice gesture, but it doesn’t affect copyright at all. To sell or give away your version of the model without permission from the rights holder of the original model is copyright infringement.

 

I got a model for free, and there was nothing that said it’s copyrighted. I changed it and improved it, so you can hardly tell it’s the same model. Can I sell my version of it?

No. No. No.

 

I heard that copyright doesn’t apply to anything that is on the internet. If it’s on the web, it’s in the public domain, right?

No. Copyright is not affected by whether the work is available on the internet.

Can I make models out of files that are distributed with 3D modeling programs like 3DS Max?

No. Those stock software models are also covered by copyright. They are licensed for personal use with the software, but not licensed for commercial use/re-sale.

 

It’s illegal to sell a copyrighted work without permission. Do I need permission to give it away for free? I am not making any money from it.

Yes, you need permission from the rights holder to distribute any copyrighted work, even if you are not charging for it. It’s against the law to give away protected work without permission.

 

I published a model of a unicorn with wings. A couple weeks later, this other artist also published a model of a unicorn with wings. Isn’t he infringing on my copyright?

No. The concept of a flying unicorn is not protected by copyright, so anyone is free to make his own painting, sculpture or 3D model of one. Now if you modeled a unique unicorn -- a polka-dot unicorn with donkey ears and dreadlocks that flies around on a surfboard made of Swiss cheese -- and then another artist publishes a model of a polka-dotted, dreadlocked, donkey-eared unicorn flying on a cheese surfboard … Well, you might have a case.

General ideas such as a showdown at high noon, wizards, princesses, dragons, thieves etc are not owned by anyone. Always check to make sure you are not assuming something is generic when it is actually “owned” by other parties – such as anything Star Wars, Star Trek, Tolkein, Martin, etc.

 

I saw a model on TurboSquid that I know was created by ArtistXYZ, but it’s being sold on the site by someone else. Does that mean the publisher stole the model?

That’s certainly a possibility, but not the only one. Copyrights can be sold or transferred, so maybe the creator sold his rights to distribute the model to someone who is now selling it on TurboSquid. But sometimes people sell models that they don’t have the rights to – and that’s copyright infringement. So if you see a model on the site that you think infringes on copyright, submit a Support ticket or click on the Report Abuse button on the product page of the model in question so we can investigate.

 

Someone is selling MY model on your site without permission. How can I get it taken down?

We follow the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA), which gives specific guidelines about how to get your intellectual property taken down from a site if the person who published it there did not have your permission. According to the DMCA, you need to submit a takedown notice to the Designated Copyright Agent at TurboSquid. Here you will find the guidelines for submitting a takedown notice.

 

If I use just a small part of someone else’s model to make my own, can I sell it or distribute it without permission from the person who has the rights to the original model?

No. It doesn’t matter how much or how little of someone else’s work you use – it’s still copyright infringement if you do it without permission. Many people are confused about this point because under the concept of Fair Use, which allows the unauthorized use of certain copyrighted materials in certain ways, small parts of a copyrighted work can sometimes be used without permission. But the amount of material being used is only one of four factors that matter under the Fair Use doctrine. If your use doesn’t meet the other three requirements for Fair Use, then using just 1% of someone else’s model to make your own may be infringement.

 

I knew my model was being published without my permission, but I didn’t realize I could do anything about it. It’s been over a year now. Do I still have copyrights to that model, even though I haven’t defended them?

Yes. You have copyright in your work until you sell or transfer them or until they expire after many years. The fact that you have never defended those rights does not necessarily mean that you gave them up, and you can choose at any time to fight the unauthorized use of your copyrighted work.

 

 

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

Would be nice if they also included some trademark law on that site:) I bet pretty much 100% of all the cars on the site are in violation with those.... Nonetheless, this is a nice addition to the LL quiz that covered most of the copyright basics..

[Pamela Galli]

Yes and I think rippers can easily pass the test -- they don't rip because of lack of information.  However there seems to be the perception that if you download somethng and change it up a little then it's exempt from copyright restrictions.  It is not.

[Masami Kuramoto]

---

Pamela Galli wrote:

This FAQ from Turbosquid is one of the most comprehensive I have seen.

---

Have you got the permission to copy & paste it here?

[WADE1 Jya]

I think top-level Lindens intended it to unfold this way. DMCA, as you may have experienced already, is a joke.

By contrast, for corporations which choose to behave like the lab, its easy to skirt the current liability loophole & make bank.

My guess is part of the current roadmap is to attract these "more diverse usergroups" to SL.

Linden Lab makes money every time these goods are transfered on marketplace. Welcome to the new SL economy.

SL = Pirates Bay for 3D models soon. However, I wonder what feds will think of SL, when IP laws tighten up... just a bit.

:catindifferent: won't affect me personally as I've uplifted my core business out of SL, into the global marketplace, but it will be interesting to watch.

[Kait Bailey]

wow, talk about up tight .. i wonder when they will enforce copy right for textures stolen from the internet too... just sayin

[WADE1 Jya]

Yeah totally!

BTW i should probably state that I don't agree with these laws.

i do like the idea of improved IP protections, but these new laws are not the answer!

Its going to go way overboard. Even spying on people 24/7... government keeping permanent records of ALL electronic communications.. its really creepy stuff... a complete loss of rights. The new laws have a very deep elite-serving agenda, going far beyond the surface excuses of 'IP protections'.

Anyway, the landscape upon which some companies (like Linden Lab) have laid the foundation of their business is about to be upended.

Just trying to warn Lindens, as I see SL sailing into a danger zone, unless everything here is picked up a notch.

[Helium Loon]

Citing the faq from a commercial site which makes its profits from distributing creative works is a lot like asking a senator if congress should be able to vote for their own raises.

 

A much better source is to obtain the information directly from the governmental sites devoted to it.

 

The quoted FAQ is heavily biased.  Anyone who has actually READ title 17 of the USC will recognize this.  For example, the FAQ quoted seems to try to dismiss the Fair Use doctrine sections as being almost impossible, citing that using even 1% of a work can make it infringing.  While not untrue, the wording clearly shows the bias.  One could just as easily show (using the law itself) that using 50% of a work may NOT be infringing.  Both are true statements.  But one shows bias one way, one the other.  Check out:  Fair-Use in Copyright and the rest of the US Copyright website

(for those with a truly masochistic or legal bent, fee free to read the entire section of the code at USC Title 17, Copyright Law

 

[Vegro Solari]

I have a scenario in my head:

PersonA produces a high-profile unicorn mesh model that has lots of sales. PersonB blatantly rips that mesh for pure commerical profit, and also has a lot of sales.

PersonA  follows due process and eventualities lead  PersonA and PersonB to court, both defended by competent attorneys. 

PersonA  is prepared and produces screenshots and vertex maps, and the different creative stages of how the unicorn in question was made. PersonB also is prepared and produces screenshots and vertex maps and different creative stages, that were all made by a low wage contractor at their request. Of course this latter fact is not advertized.

The court deliberates, deliberates, a pile of money is wasted by all on attorneys and misc fees, and in the end the judge dismisses the allegations because nothing could be decisively proven. 

Sanctimonious legal FAQ writers would only shrug:  "well, the laws are not perfect yet...we just need to legalize total 24/7 government surveilance on everyone's computer usage, that would help protect precious computer game mesh unicorns from thieves. Here's our business card, we're the friendly party with the swastika."

 

A good way to save yourself a lot of money and wasted nerves is to just let it be.  You can do it with no trouble, just try to remember how you worked, how you were an independent creator, before the copyright virus messed with the creator's ego.

Copyright used to be a legal issue for isolated high-profile disputes. Let it grow on you, and it's just like every other toxic idea - got a very good chance to become a creatively disabling mental health issue.

[Helium Loon]

Unfortunately, that scenario isn't very realistic.....possible?  Yes.  But highly unlikely.  For the following reasons:

 

1)  Person B would in all likelyhood (being someone who would 'rip off' a mesh and resell it as their own work) not be skilled or knowlegable enough to direct a contracted worker (who he doesn't want to know the details of the work, since it is possible they could be subpoenaed) to completely 'duplicate' the effort and structure of differences needed.  There are a lot of steps along the way, and upload dates to external websites and or servers can be used as evidence.

2)  The court would very rarely dismiss a case like this, as it is a civil tort, not a criminal one.  The onus (used to be) on the rights-holder to prove infringement.  Now, due to excessive spread of the laws involved, it is now often more a case that the defendant has to prove they didn't infringe.  Regardless, the usual process in civil law is still innocent until proven guilty (assuming they do not default the judgement, which can't happen in a criminal case, but OFTEN happens in civil ones, due to sneaky filings and such) so the plaintiff will try to arrange for the defendant to be unaware, or unable to appear to defend themselves, thus earning a default judgement.  Dismissal?  HIGHLY unlikely.

3)  If Person A can show that the models are identical, vertex for vertex, and can show an earlier date of upload ANYWHERE......They have copyright.  That upload timestamp would be conclusive evidence.  Then it becomes a question of whether it was willful infringement, or not.

 

Don't get me wrong.  Current Copyright laws have gone WAY beyond the original intent when they were created, and I disagree with that broadening of scope, duration, penalties and enforcement.  That doesn't mean whe have to throw the baby out with the bathwater.  Simply eliminating copyright would cause just as many problems as we have now.  But serious reform is needed.

 

[Cathy Foil]

I have a problem with, "I bought a 3D model (or got it from a friend or downloaded it free from a website), and I made a lot of changes and improvements to it. It looks really different now. Can I sell it or distribute it for free?

No. That’s called a “derivative work.” That means you took something that was protected by copyright and derived a new work from it (adapted it to make something new). But the copyrights still apply to the original work, even if your changes make the model unrecognizable.", especially the unrecognizable part I have a problem with.

At some point it ceases to be the same design and becomes something new.  With this logic a clay manufacture could copyright the clay cubes they sell and anything a sculptor creates from that cube they bought the copyright would be actually owned by the clay manufacture.  It would also mean that anything created in SL from regular prims LL would own the copyrights.  This leads to the second one I have a problem with, " I got a model for free, and there was nothing that said it’s copyrighted. I changed it and improved it, so you can hardly tell it’s the same model. Can I sell my version of it?

No. No. No.".  According to this logic even if LL did not copyright their regular prims you can not create things with regular prims and sell them or really own the copyrights to your creation.

At some point things get ridiculous.  Copyrights originally lasted 14 years.  14 years was considered long enough for the creator to be able to make a fair amount of money from their work.  Why only 14 years?  Because at some point things become apart of the culture and then belongs to everyone.  Now copyright last the lifetime of the creator plus 70 years.  Longer if the creator files certain forms.  Corporations copyrights last 100 years and keeps getting extended every few years.  It may even be more than 100 years now.

For thousands of years cultures grew because people would build upon each others works.  The great master painters throughout the ages often copied each others work and ideas adding their own inspiration and creativity inspiring the next generation to improve upon the last.  Copyright as it is now stifle creativity and damages our culture.  I can see 14 years maybe even 30 but a lifetime plus 70 years!  That's just stupid.

Here is a link to a great YouTube video about copyrights.  It is about 10 minutes long but it is very very enjoyable and very informative.

 

P.S. Pamela I really really have a lot of respect for you and admire your creativity and talent but I have to point out the irony that the text you copied and pasted from Turbosquid was copyrighted and you may have just violated that copyright.

OMG and I copied and pasted part of the same text from you!!!  When will the madness end!!!  LOL :smileylol:

 

[Pamela Galli]

For personal reasons, I am looking into what happens when something like this is taken to court.  Here is one very interesting page about that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity

 

"Substantial similarity is the standard developed and used by United States courts to determine whether a defendant has infringed the reproduction right of a copyright. The standard arises out of the recognition that the exclusive right to make copies of a work would be meaningless if infringement was limited to making only exact and complete reproductions of a work"

[Helium Loon]

---

Cathy Foil wrote:

P.S. Pamela I really really have a lot of respect for you and admire your creativity and talent but I have to point out the irony that the text you copied and pasted from Turbosquid was copyrighted and you may have just violated that copyright.

OMG and I copied and pasted part of the same text from you!!!  When will the madness end!!!  LOL :smileylol:

 

---

 

The really funny thing is....you used an excerpt (which is protected, under the Fair-Use sections), but Pamela posted the entirety of the page exactly, which IS a violation of copyright.

 

[Helium Loon]

---

Cathy Foil wrote:

I have a problem with,

"

I bought a 3D model (or got it from a friend or downloaded it free from a website), and I made a lot of changes and improvements to it. It looks really different now. Can I sell it or distribute it for free?

No. That’s called a “derivative work.” That means you took something that was protected by copyright and derived a new work from it (adapted it to make something new). But the copyrights still apply to the original work, even if your changes make the model unrecognizable.

", especially the unrecognizable part I have a problem with.

 

---

 

And you should.  According to Title 17 USC, "a derivative work" must bear a 'substantial', 'striking', or 'probative' similarity to the original work, to be considered infringing.  This is a case of the FAQ of a commercial website being misleading.  And under certain Fair-Use conditions, even then it would NOT be infringing in the courts eyes.  TurboSquid has a vested interest in making both not hosting infringing content, as well as insuring that content isn't 'diluted' by copying......so they bias their FAQ to make it look much worse than it is in the actual laws.

 

---

Cathy Foil wrote:

At some point it ceases to be the same design and becomes something new.  With this logic a clay manufacture could copyright the clay cubes they sell and anything a sculptor creates from that cube they bought the copyright would be actually owned by the clay manufacture.  It would also mean that anything created in SL from regular prims LL would own the copyrights.  This leads to the second one I have a problem with, " 

I got a model for free, and there was nothing that said it’s copyrighted. I changed it and improved it, so you can hardly tell it’s the same model. Can I sell my version of it?

No. No. No.

".  According to this logic even if LL did not copyright their regular prims you can not create things with regular prims and sell them or really own the copyrights to your creation.

 

---

Again, as above.  STRIKING or SUBSTANTIAL SIMILARITY.  This would NOT be an infringing case.  Yet TurboSquid implies it would be......

 

As to the rest, I've noted in prior posts in this thread (and others) that the original purpose and value of copyrights have been corrupted by dishonest and greedy corporations and politicians.  So we agree there!

 

It is important to note (since it appears a lot of cross-confusion is going on to a lot of people) that Copyright, Trademark, and Patent laws are ALL DIFFERENT.  And while the mechanisms are similar, they have wildly different conventions on how they apply tests and the criteria they use to determine when infringement occurs.  And it seems like a lot of people (both here and elsewhere) are confusing the elements of the three.

[Maison Nightfire]

sooo with this substantial  similarity thingy .. lots of you builders are gonna be deep in the doo doo arnt you .. what with copying real life items *coughs* no names mentioned .... looks up .. as for me im good .. i make fantasy items lmaooo  and i think  you know this similarity thingy .. would mean that you  would have to actually hold a copy right on said item in the first place ... which i happen to know costs a lot ... soo good luck with that ... 

[Perrie Juran]

It is sad that the greed of people has in so many instances now complicated the simplicity of living.

 

[Cathy Foil]

I have another YouTube link showing how to get a copyright to something you have created.  Now know anything on YouTube may not be that accurate if accurate at all so any info on costs you have would be much appreciated.

According to the video anything you create automatically you own the copyright to.  But if you want to take someone to court here in the U.S. you have to file your copyright with the federal government and that costs $45 US dollars.  Something I am sure very very few content creators here in SL have done.

Yes I know you can't copyright an idea.  They explain this in the video.

[Dilbert Dilweg]

---

How To Copryright An Idea Video

Yes I know you can't copyright an idea.  They explain this in the video.

---

 

You can even do it online and save 10 bucks

Advantages include:

• Lower filing fee of $35 for a basic claim (for online filings only)
• Fastest processing time
• Online status tracking
• Secure payment by credit or debit card, electronic check, or Copyright Office deposit account
• The ability to upload certain categories of deposits directly into eCO as electronic files
• Available 24 hours a day, except for routine maintenance every Sunday from 12:00 midnight to 6:00 AM Eastern Time

[Cathy Foil]

Helium thanks for replying.  I figured there must be something wrong with Tubosquid's explanation of copyrights. 

[161488303349]

---

Cathy Foil wrote:

P.S. Pamela I really really have a lot of respect for you and admire your creativity and talent but I have to point out the irony that the text you copied and pasted from Turbosquid was copyrighted and you may have just violated that copyright.

OMG and I copied and pasted part of the same text from you!!!  When will the madness end!!!  LOL :smileylol:

 

---

i think you both pretty safe here. the text has been attributed and it would fall under fair use for commentary

[PeterCanessa Oh]

The page in the OP would be considerably more interesting if it weren't wrong in a number of areas.

Anyone trusting that article can expect to lose in court and face fines or even jail.

Depending on where they live.

Hey everyone, remember we don't all live in the same jurisdiction!

US & Californian law applies to LL and SL.  Anyone not living in California will have another set of legislation to check against, especially all those of use that don't live in the USA.

[Cathy Foil]

I think I know where you are going with the "Substantial similarity" thing as far as copyright is concerned. Let me just warn you that similarity would not be exclusive between mesh verses mesh similarity but also sculptie to mesh and regular prim creations to mesh.  So I am sure just about every design that can be created with mesh has already been created here in SL in prims or sculpties that could claim "Substantial similarity".

My advise would be unless two meshes vertices match up exactly, especially on something that replicates a common real world object, I let it go.

[Cathy Foil]

____________________________________________________________________________________________

16 wrote:

i think you both pretty safe here. the text has been attributed and it would fall under fair use for commentary

____________________________________________________________________________________________

You are probably right 16.

Though how ironic that the website itself would seem to contradict you.  If that is ironic?

What if I credit the creator of the original model? Do I still need permission to distribute my model?

Giving credit is a nice gesture, but it doesn’t affect copyright at all. To sell or give away your version of the model without permission from the rights holder of the original model is copyright infringement.

 

[161488303349]

---

Cathy Foil wrote:

____________________________________________________________________________________________

16 wrote:

i think you both pretty safe here. the text has been attributed and it would fall under fair use for commentary

____________________________________________________________________________________________

You are probably right 16.

Though how ironic that the website itself would seem to contradict you.  If that is ironic?

What if I credit the creator of the original model? Do I still need permission to distribute my model?

Giving credit is a nice gesture, but it doesn’t affect copyright at all. To sell or give away your version of the model without permission from the rights holder of the original model is copyright infringement.

 

---

 while the turbosquid faq text does attempt to answer some questions for the general case, the situational context is that is referring to models made/owned by others and their rules about that

when we take stuff out of this context and apply it to a different use case then yes it can seem ironic

+

under copyright convention it is actual permitted in certain situations to take another persons model/creation/anything and use it, even to profit from yourself

the test is that what you do must be transformative. transformative being a state or meaning not found in the original work. providing also that the transformation does not purport to be a property ascribed/passed off as belonging to the original work/author

+

has been a few court decisions in the USA that touch on the dif between transformative and derivative

i think that what turbosquid is referring to is a derived work. eg. "your version of the model"

a transformation is not a version of a model. is a whole new work in itself. at least according to the courts

[Elle Crescendo]

If your "personal reasons" relate to the guy you labeled a thief for making a sofa similar to yours then I think you might find it's not easy to copyright a sofa, it has something to do with 'useful function'. But I'm not a lawyer so I wouldn't assume to know for sure.

I do know that I have been shopping for a new sofa myself in RL and the similarity between designers and different stores is indeed substantial, but I don't see them taking each other to court.

Also in reference to something being copied or modified beyond recognition, if it can't be recognised then it's not a copy and no one is even going to bother making a comparison because they'd never know, isn't that inspiration.