Can I sell Self modeled Wall e?

[lsdhillon]

I Have Modeled a wall e model. Although it is inspired from Disney Wall e It is not exactly the same as in the movie.

Now my question is can I sell Self modeled model? (Hope there isnt any copyright problem)

My Feeling is that I can sell As I have seen thousands of 3d models of Cars and other stuff being sold, whose designs of course must have been copyrighted.
and If I can What should be the price range in USD. Thanx

What do you say?

Also Uploading the pics as For remarks about my wall e.

Thanx

[inveni0]

Sure, you can model and sell it. I'm sure little ol' copyright and licensing laws never stopped you from doing stuff you shouldn't before. And if you're going to steal, whether it's concepts or software or music, you might as well make money for it, right?

[lsdhillon]

I feel like you are blaming me for stealing concept. I m just a 3d learner, Inspired by Wall e, I thought to model it. and why not support finances, while learning, from your own work.

Credit will always go to First timer creator

[RockstarKate]

Those people selling car models are breaking the law too. I guess it isn't a problem unless the company you are plaigarizing decides to pursue it.

[lsdhillon]

Then companies have billions to collect, if they goto turbosquid.com

I m still not sure it is legal or not?

[moley]

If you are ever unsure as to the legality of an action do not do it. Don't risk it. If you are questioning the legality it's probably wrong to do.

Asking the people here in this forum if you can sell a model based on a concept copyrighted by a 3rd party is an excercise in futility. You should contact the copyright holder and ask them directly if they have any issues with you selling your model.

[lsdhillon]

Finally I feel like this could be the right answer.
I ll try to contact them for this issue.
I hope modeling the copyright material is not Illegal
:-( and that agian for learning purposes

[lsdhillon]

Deleted this post

[gnome]

I must say I am not familiar with copyright law at all, but I think it doesn't even allow you to model it without permission - unless it somehow qualifies as fair use, which is definitely not the case when you want to sell your model.
I don't know how copyright law applies to the shape of a particular car, maybe it's questionable whether modelling a car is a copyright infringement.... using the brand logo probably is :roll: :haha:

[lsdhillon]

I don't know how copyright law applies to the shape of a particular car, maybe it's questionable whether modelling a car is a copyright infringement.... using the brand logo probably is :roll: :haha:

Then Anyone can design anything(not only cars) of someone else's concept and Just need to put their own logo(or in other words remove original Logo)

[inveni0]

I don't know how copyright law applies to the shape of a particular car, maybe it's questionable whether modelling a car is a copyright infringement.... using the brand logo probably is :roll: :haha:

Modeling the look of a car is okay. It's okay because you aren't actually duplicating anything by measurement or patent. Using a trademarked logo is against the law. This is why lots of movies or tv shows actually take the logos off of cars. (And they don't want to give a car company free advertising.)

[lsdhillon]

Modeling the look of a car is okay. It's okay because you aren't actually duplicating anything by measurement or patent. Using a trademarked logo is against the law. This is why lots of movies or tv shows actually take the logos off of cars. (And they don't want to give a car company free advertising.)

Then I can model eg. Wall E with different proportions and fully own it.

[dhin]

Well I'll inject my two cents, the model looks good.

THAT said you are not asking about Copyright. You are asking about ownership.
A copyright protects original works that fall under the categories of literature, dramatic, musical, artistic, and intellectual. These works may be published or unpublished, and the Copyright Act of 1976 gives the owner exclusive rights to reproduce their work in any medium. A copyright protects a form of expression, but not the subject matter of the work. For example, if someone wrote an article about a new car on the market, the text would be copyrighted, preventing someone else from using that particular material. However, a copyright does not prevent others from writing their own original article about this new car, or from using or making the car themselves.

A trademark is used to protect a word, symbol, device or name that is used for the purpose of trading goods. The trademark indicates the source of goods and distinguishes them from the goods of others. A trademark may also be used to prevent others from using a mark that might be confused with another; trademarks, however, do not prevent other people or businesses from producing the same product or services under a different mark.

Trademarks can be registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-uspto.htm)). The filing fee is more substantial than it is for a copyright, and it usually takes a longer time to obtain registration, since the Patent and Trademark Office conducts a substantive review of any potentially conflicting marks, or marks that might be confused with others.

A patent for an invention grants a property right to the inventor that will prevent anyone else from making, using, or selling an invention. A patent lasts for a limited amount of time, usually 20 years from the date the application was filed, and is only effective in the country in which it was filed. The application for a patent must include a detailed description of how the invention works. Since a patent is considered "property," it may be bought, sold, mortgaged, or licensed by the owner.

Basics of that are, cars (i.e. Dodge Viper) are trademarked and patented, not under copyright. So therefore are not limited in reproduction of likeness, so long as it does not violate trademark or patent. Cars (i.e. Lightning McQueen) are copyright protected and that includes the sales of likeness or reproductions. You can use reproductions and likeness for personal uses (i.e. your portfolio) but you cannot directly profit from sales of copyright materials that you may have produced unless directly allowed by the owner. And Disney would probably require 75% or more in royalties and then only allow it through there own stores.

It could be argued that portions of the likeness could be changed and that then it would be you intellectual property. But there are restrictions here as well. The Name, the at least 50% of the likeness as I understand it mush change. So when compaired side by side the differences are very apparent and when looked at separately they are noticeable.

For more information see also: http://www.lawmart.com/searches/difference.htm

[Mr. Bluesummers-3DT]

I have some experience with copyright law, and would like to throw in a little perspective.

The issue with all copyright law is damages. Are you causing monetary harm to the people who rightfully deserve it (the creators)? Are you getting a free ride off a celebrity's popularity? Are you selling something that explicitly bears a resemblance to someone else's bread and butter?

In this case, arguably yes. If Pixar wanted the Wall-e model to be sold, they could click a few buttons and it'd be up for sale. You've essentially reverse engineered a profitable item because you saw it presented to you through someone else's labor. While you're entitled to be proud of your modeling job (it's pretty good), you can't profit from it.

If you sold this as a product, you probably won't get caught. However, if Pixar did get steamed and wanted to press charges, you can bet your bottom dollar you'd lose the case by summary judgement.

[RockstarKate]

Then companies have billions to collect, if they goto turbosquid.com


Very true. You might find this interesting:
http://rychlicki.net/en/2008/06/18/406/

Like I said, if they take you to court, you will lose. The likelihood of that is very small right now, but who knows if it will change in the future. The worst I've actually heard happening to anyone is receipt of a Cease and Desist notice.

[Mr. Bluesummers-3DT]

P.S.
As for using different proportions, that might not be enough. You have to fulfill the requirement of "sufficient difference" in order to escape prosecution.

This means that a reasonable person looking at it must know that this robot is not Wall-e. You can make Wall-e's brother or sister or old old grandpa, though.

[Mr. Bluesummers-3DT]

Very true. You might find this interesting:
http://rychlicki.net/en/2008/06/18/406/

Like I said, if they take you to court, you will lose. The likelihood of that is very small right now, but who knows if it will change in the future. The worst I've actually heard happening to anyone is receipt of a Cease and Desist notice.

As usual, Kate is on top of her game. A slap on the wrist is much easier than a full-blown legal pummeling. C&D notices give you the same adrenaline as a subpoena, so they tend to have a similar effect. :hurt:

[Kage]

I don't think the model could be sold no. The fact you changed a few items does not make a difference, as for instance, that could easily be seen as a simple modelling defect in your part.

It doesn't seem as bad selling car models, electrical items etc to use in peoples projects at home, to me, than it seems, to do what your doing, and trying to sell something that has been made once for a specific film, that couldn't really be used as a placeholder for anything existing.

I'd definetly look at that robot, and see Wall-E, whatever cosmetic choices you've made.

Great for practise though, and it is a pretty good model.
Get designing :p

[JHarford]

50% of models of models on the model bank sites are copyrighted.
I think we can all be 'all kind, moral upholding and ever-abiding', but that's not
really the world works. If your seriously going to listen to all this posted lawyer talk
then pay to get an evualation done by a proffesional firm, know what you getting your
self into.

[DaddyDoom]

I wouldn't sell this model for one single reason:
> The pertinence of selling a model that is not 100% accurate when compared to the original character (and not as good), so what is the purpose of selling it at all? Why would people spend money in something which has little commercial use at all (due to copyright)? I don't see anyone spending money on models if not for commercial use, right?

The time and effort put on this fits the purpose of training. I don't remember if someone said this already, but it would be far more productive and useful if you'd make a simple tutorial on "How To Model a Wall-E type robot".
I'm no expert in texturing, but technically wise I find the current texture work a bit messy. Some areas are way too noisy, others are way too bumpy, and overall it seems that you just threw a old and scratched paint map over the mesh and that's it. Again, even though you wanted to achieve a slightly distinctive look from the original, it lacks the character and personality that Wall-E itself has.

Just my two cents.

DD

[JHarford]

no-one said it would actually sell...A well texture wall-e might sell well to people, for various reasons. I suggest the creator of this thread try to either replicate wall-e and sell that, the copyright being the buyers problem ( on a site that works under those rules ).
Or just model a new robot, seperate from wall-e, I see no reason to model something vaguely similar.

[DaddyDoom]

... I see no reason to model something vaguely similar.

That's precisely my point :)

[RockstarKate]

Also, 3D models of cars are models of Physical Objects. A 3D model of a 3D model is clearly a different matter.

[JHarford]

Hmm, Not really. It's a movie. It's just a result of a different process.

[RockstarKate]

I think there is a difference between making a digital reproduction of a real object and making a digital reproduction of a digital object, no?

[JHarford]

mm , I wouldn't say so. It's a digital reproduction of concept from a movie, or a character in a movie. I think the line is so blurred now, the differentiation can't be made. The liscense is on wall-e, not the model itself. That's just the way he's bought to life on the screen.

[RockstarKate]

Maybe it's just me, but somehow it seems less like stealing if I make a model of a car I see on the street and sell it than if I make a model of a 3D model I see in a movie and sell it. Maybe it is because in my mind, when you make a 3D model of a car, you can't do the things with it you could with the real thing- like drive it. It doesn't have the same purpose or value. But if you make a 3D model of a 3D character in a movie, it does have the same purpose- to generate imagery and theoretically, you could then make any image made by Disney and never have to purchase a Disney poster/tshirt/mug/etc ever again. But if you make a 3D model of a car, you are still going to have to buy the real thing if you want to drive it.

[JHarford]

Good points Kate,
If someone knows how to build a car, then go ahead, then they won't need to buy one either. It would cost more, but they are both processes designed to create a result. I doubt many people could actually setup and animate wall-e aswell as pixar did, These models are not really comparable to the quality and scale of durability the pixar ones are. Even that one on front page.

[RockstarKate]

It is an interesting question- one that belongs in General Discussion, me thinks :)

[JHarford]

:)

[lsdhillon]

Well There are lots of questions here to be asked.

DaddyDoom>> I modeled it for learning purpose only, but when I saw that I m able to get sort of look to the model I thought I could sell it for some funding, but again ur reason for "No one will buy it" seems correct.
As mentioned above I m learning 3d so texturing was another try for it

Kate>>u did prove something(Medium to be different)

Now, It seems that I need to model physical things/objects which don't exist in this electronic media and then I can sell it

The medium should be different, then I can sell it. Is that so?

I could not find the contact of Pixar or Disney for this matter. Could some one help with this too?

Hope they dont sue me for modeling it :o

[BikerNut]

Wow, can-o-worms springs to mind. All very interesting though. I aggree that selling a model of a cgi model could be very dangerous and like others said, not worth the risk. A nice little model though, althought the eyes could do with some more detail (I've not seen the film so apologies if it's true to form).

[DaddyDoom]

That's the coolest attitude dude :)
You can easily sell something which is original or designed by you. If it's good enough, and has a good/pertinent commercial value, then it is more likely that people will buy it.
Good luck!

DD

[dhin]

I could not find the contact of Pixar or Disney for this matter. Could some one help with this too?

Hope they dont sue me for modeling it :o

I would say you are safe in modeling it for you own personal development. All the Ironman modelers would be in trouble if it was copyright infringement. Basically so long as you never turn around to sell it then there isn't a problem.

I really wish people would take time to learn a little bit about copyright and what can and cannot be copyright protected. A little googling would give you a wealth of information.

[djmj]

I`ve read everything with interest and remember when there was Quake3 "Starwars characters" to download from bluenews. Lucas-art stopped it. This was just "free" Q3 ready characters people uploaded.

So you never know.
Be carefull.

Regards
Johan

[lsdhillon]

So the final Result of this conversation is

# You can model anything you want for learning purposes.
# You can sell only unique self made work.
# Never ever try to sell anything you are not sure about.
# ........................
Fill this blank what you have understood so far

[DaddyDoom]

For that #4 blank space I'd say: "Always use a rubber" or "Stay out of drugs" :D

[Honki]

Or "Always wipe front to back"


Damn.... Can of worms indeed!

[lsdhillon]

Honki Can of waste indeed!

[nickolasstevens]

I would just remember that its Disney you're going up against and no other company in the world protects its properties like Disney. I used to work for them and I was told they have an entire legal team who find cases like this and take them down. I would be careful when dealing with them.

[brentagain]

it`s easy to understand
you can model and show anything you want..but the instant you profit from it the copyright laws kick in and they have legal recourse against you..the only way you could sell it is if you have their permission first..and they are unlikely to give that to you.

[gnome]

it`s easy to understand
you can model and show anything you want..but the instant you profit from it the copyright laws kick in and they have legal recourse against you..the only way you could sell it is if you have their permission first..and they are unlikely to give that to you.

definitely not true. art reproduction is creating a derivative work, which is an exclusive right of the copyright holder. Unless the copyright holder allows it, or it qualifies as fair use or parody (or some other exception like that), it's copyright infringement.

[brentagain]

if you take it to the extreme...then yes it is copyright enfringement as you say.
My point is...you can model and post whatever you like....you just have to look at any 3d forum and see for example..a model of a Blizzard character...now does Blizzard come after them for creating it?...no they dont...however if that modeller starts selling his model to clients...then indeed Blizzard will come after him or her.My point is just that copyright laws are more acted upon when profit is involved.Indeed any re-creation is enfringement...however that aspect [merely recreating] a model is usually looked over by the origional creator..it`s when money is involved... that`s when the laws get more enforced..and that`s the jist of this post..can he sell his model..ie: profiting from anothers creation.

[Perversonality]

The only slightly grey area, and this depends on your country of origin, is if you charge someone for the time taken to create a model. If you are not charging for the model, purely for the time invested in making it then you can get around the problem. However, the charge has to be a one-time, one-person style fee and you cannot subsequently sell the model repeatedly without permission from the IP/copyright holder as then you are simply selling the model and not the time invested in it.

[Mr. Bluesummers-3DT]

This...has gone on way longer than it should on this forum. I'm going to lock this one up.

If you guys wanna keep beating this dead horse, you'll have to start a new thread in the general discussion forum. :crazy: