Something a littel fishy here?

Moderators: Jason8472, Casious

an0n
Junior Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 1:00 am
Location: Klendathu
Contact:

Post by an0n » Fri Nov 28, 2003 12:00 am

Originally posted by Crook:
Ahh well, there we differ in the strongest possible way. It isn't. Credit or no, permission from the original artist should come first. An entirely new clone of a model is fine, but a direct conversion, even with editing, requires permission.
......So it'd be fine if I say, took that Saratoga model (which is absolutely goddamn awesome, BTW) from the site and used it as a template to extrude every face, nudge every vertex and chamfer every edge on a box until it was absolutely, totally identical to the original 'toga down to the smallest fraction of a point of each co-ord for every vertex on every subobject of the model. But if I just stripped the textures and called it new it'd be wrong?

As long as I put some effort into my blatant theft, it's okay?
Without that permission it becomes a free-for-all, which is not the intent of the internet.
Don't even start on the 'intent of the internet'. It was designed so the US could maintain it's ability to nuke the shit out of anyone who decided to take out one of their cities.
But with so much piracy around, who's going to fully protect digital artists? I for one am on their side, and what they say goes.
I agree. If someone saying "don't use my stuff", then their stuff shouldn't be used. But if they put it up for download and just say "Here. Use this" then it's pretty much their own fault if someone screws with it.
Maybe they want to keep their work for a personal portfolio. Spread across the net it could damage someones chances of a job, or freelance work etc etc. We have to give them the right to say 'no'.
If they post something on the internet for everyone to see without saying "don't redistribute mye stuff", they forfeit the right to 'keep their work for a personal portfollio'.

It'd be like me throwing a drop of water into the ocean and saying "Right, stay right there". If I don't put it inside some kind of non-water-soluble capsule, it's my own fault when it wander off and gets breathed in by a fish.

But if someone intentionally pops the non-water-solluble capsule, then it'd be fine for me to bitch.

Okay, I'm starting to confuse myself with all the extended metaphors.

If you just put something on the internet, the default is that people can take it and share it. If you tell them not to, then they shouldn't.

User avatar
Crook
Posts: 3900
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2000 1:00 pm
Location: Oxfordshire, UK
Contact:

Post by Crook » Fri Nov 28, 2003 9:28 am

In the first point, no. A clone model is not a simple repetition, it's a re-working by a different artist. I think we need to use the word 'artist' in this. Just to copy every vertex, every UV coordinate, every RGB texture value is meaningless, which any artist would not even consider (well, not anyone I'd call an artist).

A clone model is a new interpretation of the material as you well know, and trying to apply such extremes of spectrum is no argument at all. It simply brings focus away from the intent.

The intent of the internet as it stands today. I thought that would have been obvious. Otherwise the 'intent' of your digital computer is to decrypt german military messages.

The default of digital material on the internet as laid down in law is that you cannot use it. That is digital material intellectual copyright. Seems we've come full circle.

I don't see how we're going to agree on this point as you seem to want to apply black and white rules and perculiar metaphors to the situation, whereas the situation calls for reasonable judgement and an appreciation of the intent of copyright law.

an0n
Junior Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 1:00 am
Location: Klendathu
Contact:

Post by an0n » Fri Nov 28, 2003 4:32 pm

Originally posted by Crook:
In the first point, no. A clone model is not a simple repetition, it's a re-working by a different artist. I think we need to use the word 'artist' in this. Just to copy every vertex, every UV coordinate, every RGB texture value is meaningless, which any artist would not even consider (well, not anyone I'd call an artist).
It all depends on where you want to draw the line. If someone tries to make an exact, identical, indestinguishable copy, but is just talentless and comes up with something similar but not the same, is that still 'art'.
The intent of the internet as it stands today. I thought that would have been obvious. Otherwise the 'intent' of your digital computer is to decrypt german military messages.
Ha-ha. Yes. Ha-ha. I would never use my computer for such things......... Image
The default of digital material on the internet as laid down in law is that you cannot use it. That is digital material intellectual copyright. Seems we've come full circle.
I find it curious that you emphasise what the law thinks when, under the DMCA and whatever the acronym for it's UK counter-part is, this entire mod is in breach of copyright.
I don't see how we're going to agree on this point as you seem to want to apply black and white rules and perculiar metaphors to the situation, whereas the situation calls for reasonable judgement and an appreciation of the intent of copyright law.
Firstly, the law holds no favour when it comes to the intent of those it governs, which is why it keeps fucking up. But that's a whole 'nother argument.

And when you boil away all the crap, the opinion, the spurious arguments and the unfounded beliefs, things are always black and white. It's just when people try to confuse the issue to their advantage that the grey areas appear.

User avatar
Crook
Posts: 3900
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2000 1:00 pm
Location: Oxfordshire, UK
Contact:

Post by Crook » Fri Nov 28, 2003 4:55 pm

Ahh... theres a debate to be had as to what portion of the mod breaches copyright, which is for another thread entirely I think. The namebadges and insignia certainly do, but clone models do not as they are bound by intellectual copyright. If the models contain insignias etc within them, then you're moving into difficult territory. But this shouldn't be a debate about law, rather a debate about ethics.

On the art issue, I'd say an exact duplicate model is not art. Who would? The point is that converting a model is not very creative, and the idea behind modding is that it is a creative process. Using other models is a cop out for modders I think and I'd much rather teach someone to model. One more modeller to add to the pool.

And still the fundamental disagreement remains. I think that use of models should always require permission from the original artist, whereas you think that a credit is sufficient, regardless of the artists views.

In my opinion this position is morally and ethically wrong. Ok, it's not murder or anything, but still it's wrong. I'd rather respect the artists involved than the modders who steal their work.

We should agree to disagree on this point and leave it at that.

Sheriden
Posts: 1826
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Sheriden » Fri Nov 28, 2003 10:18 pm

Originally posted by Crook:
We should agree to disagree on this point and leave it at that.
amen to that

User avatar
Crook
Posts: 3900
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2000 1:00 pm
Location: Oxfordshire, UK
Contact:

Post by Crook » Sat Nov 29, 2003 10:41 pm

[img]smile.gif[/img]

Post Reply

Return to “SAAB Homeworld Mod”