Reference image Copyrights

Discussion started by Whiteberg

Hello Everyone!

i have a question
if i make a 3d model off a reference image without asking the permission of the owner of the real-world design , is that a breach of copyrights?
i have recently had this issue.
im new to selling 3d models and made a model off a reference image i found on google image thinking it was a random picture off google images.
but the owner contacted me and asked me to take it down.
to my knowledge , as long as im not selling the actual real world item , or the images that the owner produced im not breaching copyrights right?

Answers

Posted about 1 month ago
0

Let me guess - did you make the kinetic sculptures of Anthony Howe? :-)

Posted about 1 month ago
1

You will commit copyright infringement if you do that.

Copyright means to have the right to copy, the owner of a design has that right and nobody ells unless the owner grands you the right to a copy (provide you a license for a reproduction) or he may transfer you all exclusive rights in some deal. If the owner does not grant you any of those rights then you basically are not allowed to reproduce the design in any way or form (this includes 3D modeling or 3D print it displaying it on your website or provide it for fee distribution or whatever).

There are some exceptions in the cases of public domain or creative commons and so called derivative works but the laws on the latter are murky and frequent ground for debate and lawsuits.

In the case your describing you also need to remember an image is always a copyright protected creation (so there is no such thing as a random Google image) and an image can also embed/depict a design that is also copyright protected (possibly to someone ells then photographer).

Long story short, you can model whatever you see in real world or images but if its a design someone made then in most cases someone will have the rights to that design. You can still model it and say your the owner of the 3D model, but you will not be the owner of the design it is depicting and thus not free do do whatever you want with it. Basically for every copy you sell of such model you will be including a copy of that copyrighted design (from someone ells) and thus basically need to pay royalty's to that original design holder (that is if he would be making such a deal with you, in other case it would be pure infringement if he does not know about it and consent to it).

Just remember the copyrights to a design do not get automatically transferred if you display the same design in a different medium.

Posted about 1 month ago
1

Suppose you want to model an elephant, you´ll need probably several pictures of it, these are reference images, no matter you find them in Google, or you do them with your own camera.
Nobody will claim against this use of the pics, even the photographer , just because the pics did not appear in the model in any way, they are just the references you look at in order to model an elephant properly.
The same can be applied to any real life natural object.
But things change if you want to model something that someone designed.

Posted about 1 month ago
0

i understand , thank you for the information , i'll definitely look more into the reference images i use in the future

Posted about 1 month ago
0

Everything will depend on many factors. Whether the author of the image will be against, whether he will find a model on the site. Will the site team consider claims.
Here, for example,
https://www.cgtrader.com/3d-models/aircraft/jet/ultimate-embraer-phenom-300-blue-and-white
the author uses most of the interior of my model, which I have not once indicated to the Cgtrader team. But still the model on the site. As you can see, the author deliberately does not show the grid of the model, although I defined it on the skechfab.

Posted about 1 month ago
0

@DUST, the case your describing here is in violation with the terms the standard license provide, that seller is basically sub-licensing your work illegally.

He would normally need to pay you royalty’s for every model he sells (that has your work embedded in it), 3D stock media cannot be embedded in other 3D stock media unless the original creator approves to this use.

Normal use cases for 3D stock media would include using it as part in making video productions (be part of a scene) or it can be embedded in a game and sold along with it if that is in a proprietary format. In your case that seller is simply redistributing/re-selling (sub-licensing) your work embedded in regular 3D formats, that's in pure violation with the standard license. He/she is directly making money of it and competing with your offerings that get devalued in this case.

As far as I can tell you have ground to sue him and demand to get compensated for all damages he may have caused you. However, I would advice you to keep it friendly and contact that seller and point out that his uses are in violation with the user agreements and request the removal of your work embedded in those files his selling.

Also note that 3D stock media models embedded in proprietary game formats cannot be sub-licensed within those formats or frameworks, meaning, that model (design) cannot be subject to in game items provided for sale to the game players or hobbyist builders.

In short, 3D stock media cannot be sub-licensed in any way or form without explicit permissions of the rights holder.

Posted 30 days ago
0

I tried to establish friendly contact with the author. And i was even ready to close his eyes to this violation, but i'm met a rude refusal.
After that, I turned to the CGtrader team and provided evidence of coinciding model mesh fragments.
At first, the support responded that they did not find any violations, then after I said that I would post the evidence in the forum, they carefully considered and acknowledged the violation.
Models were removed, but after a while they appeared again.
The author deliberately does not show the grid of the model as well as he removed the model from the skechfab where the mesh can be controlled thoroughly.
Honestly, I have mixed feelings. Or continue to push to remove models or spit on him.

Posted 30 days ago
0

Hi DUST, remember when i accused you for using my texture in your model without my consent and how you refused to admit that? Now, when you're on the other side of the fence, i hope you understand how it feels when your creation is being stolen and used by someone else.

Posted 30 days ago
0

I thought we closed this question in our correspondence. Ok again and on points:
1 I apologized for posting screenshots of my model in your gallery.
2 I explained where I got the image from and why I don’t admit my guilt.
Summarizing: I would not bother to make a noise because of the picture 150 * 300 pixels if someone suddenly decided to use it in his model. Here I am talking about the full grid of the interior of the entire aircraft.
If you still think that this picture is yours - I will give you a link to the official website on Facebook Volocopter and point to this image. goo.gl/pKWkJP
Or do you think that volocopter used your picture? Then contact them for clarification.
Are there any other questions?

here i put big size image
https://www.2025ad.com/fileadmin/user_upload/In_the_news/Blogs/CES_2018_Drones/volocopter-2x-you-and-the-city_16x9.jpg

Posted 30 days ago
0

I apologize maybe I was harsh. Emotions today..

Posted 30 days ago
0

First of all, i'm not pursuing you to stop using my texture anymore. Seeing your attitude towards what's considering fair use and what's not, i see no point to argue. That texture in the picture that you show in the message above, is created by me and i have all the evidence to prove it. What i actually wanted to say, if you feel no guilty in stoling others artwork, then be prepare that same thing might happen to you too. By accusing other guy who stoled your creation, but at the same time denying that you act the same when opportunity arise, you are no more than hypocrite.

Posted 30 days ago
0

ok forgot about it

Your answer

In order to post an answer, you need to sign in.

Help