More detailed female skin texture

Works in progress and technical screen shots.

Moderator: joepal

Re: More detailed female skin texture

Postby wolgade » Wed Mar 09, 2016 10:49 am

o4saken wrote:Hi sure you may use it....

Thanks.
i just put things here for anyone to use it, do with what they want with it..

You didn't state this. That's why I was asking. I consider anything published anywhere as restricted as it gets, unless the author (copyright holder) grants me the right to use his stuff. Copyright infringements can get expensive. Beside this fact it's not very nice to use other peoples work without their permission.
wolgade
 
Posts: 790
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:50 pm

Re: More detailed female skin texture

Postby learning » Wed Mar 09, 2016 11:07 am

wolgade wrote: I consider anything published anywhere as restricted as it gets, unless the author (copyright holder) grants me the right to use his stuff. Copyright infringements can get expensive. Beside this fact it's not very nice to use other peoples work without their permission.

Wow, that's… :shock: I don't even know, it's like Calvinism of copyrightist sect. Assume everything is a sin unless someone explicitly states it's not. How have you even come to be this way?
learning
 
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 9:36 am

Re: More detailed female skin texture

Postby joepal » Wed Mar 09, 2016 12:47 pm

Actually I think that's pretty much the "correct" way of seeing it. You can't just take someone's stuff unless they say so. Ok, so dumping material on a public forum might be considered giving an implicit permission for using it, but it'd never hold if a conflict arose.

As a parallel: Consider someone made a homepage and put a photo on it. The homepage is obviously public, and people visiting it obviously get permission to view the photo. However, going from there to taking the photo and putting it on your own homepage is a definite no-no unless you first got explicit permission.

Anyway, to avoid confusion, just say it's available for whatever when you post something. It doesn't need to be formulated in any fancy way with licenses or such.
Joel Palmius (LinkedIn)
MakeHuman Infrastructure Manager
http://www.palmius.com/joel
joepal
 
Posts: 3936
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 11:20 am

Re: More detailed female skin texture

Postby Aranuvir » Wed Mar 09, 2016 2:17 pm

joepal wrote:Actually I think that's pretty much the "correct" way of seeing it. You can't just take someone's stuff unless they say so. Ok, so dumping material on a public forum might be considered giving an implicit permission for using it, but it'd never hold if a conflict arose.

As a parallel: Consider someone made a homepage and put a photo on it. The homepage is obviously public, and people visiting it obviously get permission to view the photo. However, going from there to taking the photo and putting it on your own homepage is a definite no-no unless you first got explicit permission.

Anyway, to avoid confusion, just say it's available for whatever when you post something. It doesn't need to be formulated in any fancy way with licenses or such.


Why not adding a forum rule to clarify the situation: e.g. all uploaded stuff is considered CC BY SA (or what ever free license), except the up-loader explicitly grants a different license ?
Aranuvir
 
Posts: 1249
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 2:12 pm

Re: More detailed female skin texture

Postby wolgade » Wed Mar 09, 2016 4:32 pm

Aranuvir wrote:Why not adding a forum rule to clarify the situation: e.g. all uploaded stuff is considered CC BY SA (or what ever free license), except the up-loader explicitly grants a different license ?

Something stated in some rules, people don't necessarily read, might not be considered a valid contract. We all come from different countries. In my country (Germany) this wouldn't work at all. Even the worst photo ever taken is copyrighted. Only the photographer has the right to decide about the usage of this photo. A texture could be considered as similar (legally) to a photo. You can't take away the authors rights with such a disclaimer. But I don't see any problem here. I asked for permission and got it.
learning wrote:Wow, that's… :shock: I don't even know, it's like Calvinism of copyrightist sect. Assume everything is a sin unless someone explicitly states it's not. How have you even come to be this way?

1. In Germany we have a lot of lawyers doing nothing but sueing regular internet users for copyright infringements. A lot of content generates more money this way than by legal (licensed) usage.
2. I work in the media business. I saw more than once how expensive it gets, if you use stuff without license or without properly reading the license. Real world advice: If you're allowed to broadcast 59s of Formula One stuff in a news report on TV, don't broadcast 60s or more. That bill really hit the ceiling.
wolgade
 
Posts: 790
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:50 pm

Re: More detailed female skin texture

Postby Aranuvir » Thu Mar 10, 2016 11:32 am

wolgade wrote:Something stated in some rules, people don't necessarily read, might not be considered a valid contract. We all come from different countries. In my country (Germany) this wouldn't work at all.

... I should have expected this.
Aranuvir
 
Posts: 1249
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 2:12 pm

Re: More detailed female skin texture

Postby learning » Thu Mar 10, 2016 3:10 pm

joepal wrote:Actually I think that's pretty much the "correct" way of seeing it. You can't just take someone's stuff unless they say so. Ok, so dumping material on a public forum might be considered giving an implicit permission for using it, but it'd never hold if a conflict arose.

As a parallel: Consider someone made a homepage and put a photo on it. The homepage is obviously public, and people visiting it obviously get permission to view the photo. However, going from there to taking the photo and putting it on your own homepage is a definite no-no unless you first got explicit permission.

Anyway, to avoid confusion, just say it's available for whatever when you post something. It doesn't need to be formulated in any fancy way with licenses or such.

I still don't get it. You are saying that looking at a photo is okay but actually copying and re-sharing it is somehow bad? That's even more repressive than facebook, at least in facebook you can re-share people's photos on your own page with no limitation. And what about derivative works? If I want to take a photo and make some shopped version, do I need to seek out the photo's author and ask for their permission? This is stupid and that's not how the internet works, and it will never work this way and I don't want to live in a world where it would work this way. This is some sort of copyrightist dystopia that might as well serve as kopimist version of eternal damnation. In real internet whenever information — any piece of information at all — becomes publicly available, it doesn't "belong" to anyone and anyone can copy, share and modify it ad libitum. And this is the natural way, the way it should always work, and it will always work like this unless copyrightists somehow manage to subdue the internet with copious amount of government coercion.
learning
 
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 9:36 am

Re: More detailed female skin texture

Postby learning » Thu Mar 10, 2016 3:17 pm

wolgade wrote:1. In Germany we have a lot of lawyers doing nothing but sueing regular internet users for copyright infringements. A lot of content generates more money this way than by legal (licensed) usage.
2. I work in the media business. I saw more than once how expensive it gets, if you use stuff without license or without properly reading the license. Real world advice: If you're allowed to broadcast 59s of Formula One stuff in a news report on TV, don't broadcast 60s or more. That bill really hit the ceiling.

Wow, that's gnarly! This is in fact nothing short of extortion. So, are there any movements aiming to fight this? I heard German Pirate Party is big and quite powerful, any chances they'd be able to change the situation?
learning
 
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 9:36 am

Re: More detailed female skin texture

Postby MTKnife » Fri Mar 11, 2016 5:29 am

learning wrote:I still don't get it. You are saying that looking at a photo is okay but actually copying and re-sharing it is somehow bad? That's even more repressive than facebook, at least in facebook you can re-share people's photos on your own page with no limitation. And what about derivative works? If I want to take a photo and make some shopped version, do I need to seek out the photo's author and ask for their permission? This is stupid and that's not how the internet works, and it will never work this way and I don't want to live in a world where it would work this way. This is some sort of copyrightist dystopia that might as well serve as kopimist version of eternal damnation. In real internet whenever information — any piece of information at all — becomes publicly available, it doesn't "belong" to anyone and anyone can copy, share and modify it ad libitum. And this is the natural way, the way it should always work, and it will always work like this unless copyrightists somehow manage to subdue the internet with copious amount of government coercion.


Yes, Joel is right, and this is not exactly new news. And, in fact, the internet does often work just as copyright laws (which have, in fact, typically been updated to adapt them to the digital age) intend. You can share photos on Facebook because the Facebook user agreements says that you give permission for this to happen when you upload a photo. And yes, some people don't respect the law, or are ignorant of it, but people have been getting caught and forced to take down copyrighted content--and even, sometimes, pay fines--for years. Some copyright holder explicitly allow certain types of use, some overlook it where the violating material isn't spread too widely and the individuals in question aren't profiting from it (fan fiction and fan art--derivative works--can fall under both of those categories), and there are corners of the internet visited so infrequently that no one bothers to police them. Nonetheless, none of these laws is news.

I'm not sure why you think putting a picture online is tantamount to making it publicly available--any more than is putting the same picture in a book in a public library. You can see it for free either way, but the owner also has a chance to profit off of it, either by getting paid for the library copy of the book, or selling ads on his website.

Personally, I think the length of copyright is currently too long, and I found the sponsorship of one particularly egregious law in the U.S. by a member of Congress with a deep personal interest (Sonny Bono's widow) to be extraordinarily cynical, but copyright does have a purpose in providing a way for the creator of an original work to get rewarded.
MTKnife
 
Posts: 296
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 5:22 am

Re: More detailed female skin texture

Postby learning » Fri Mar 11, 2016 7:56 am

Well, it's not the place nor context to start a copyright debate here, but I have to reiterate the point I feel very strongly about: the very idea of copyright is stupid, it is just a way for certain immoral freaks to extort people doing what is natural for them by using government coercion and there's nothing more to it. It is basically the same as food tax or breathing tax or living-in-our-glorious-empire tax, except even more arbitrary and cynical because it concerns information which isn't even material. It doesn't work in real life for the same reason other stupid, unfair and arbitrary laws don't work: people en masse would just ignore it unless you terrorize them. Copyrightists do their best to scare people out of breaking copyright laws by picking a few scapegoats and dropping the hammer of the state violence onto them — in some countries more than the others, but nowhere even close to the majority of cases when copyright is broken. If you care about and follow the copyright laws because you are afraid you'd become one of such scapegoats, it's natural and understandable. But if you actually think copyright laws do any good to anybody, you are just lying to yourself. It doesn't, never had, never will. It's literally pure evil. Anyone who tries to justify copyright in any way at all is either a fool or a liar. Thus, copyright is one field where the "bigger cages, longer chains" approach just isn't applicable, it needs to be done away with completely, once and for all.

I'm not going to pursue this topic here any more, because it's both flame-generating and offtopic, but it's something I just had to say.
learning
 
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 9:36 am

PreviousNext

Return to WIP (Work In Progress)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest