Copyrights: Non-Commercial, Development Only Use

Soniclight wrote on 12/22/2007, 1:55 PM
Copyrights: Non-Commercial, Development-Only Use of Material

"Oh, no, one more thread on copyrights..."

Well, hopefully this one is a bit different, and I really would like some input for this whole thing has gotten me pretty depressed.

As subject line states, I'm not using or publishing material for commercial use, and I paid for the clip from the original copyright holder -- but not for publishing license. I've become even more ethic compulsive and I'm stuck in a seeming no-win quandary:

--- I feel guilty showing the study/test renders to anyone, be it even a friend or potential future model/actress. Or even opening up/viewing the Vegas files myself anymore.

Lemme 'splain...

One Guy's Home-Based R&D

As some of you know, I'm shooting for eventually make a short film based on my website, CompassionSensuality.Net. It's essence is probably a bit too new-agey for most, and it certainly isn't porn by a long shot.

Due to my life circumstances and challenges (disability limits my social life), I haven't yet found the model/actress creative partner to work with. But I still wanted to have some kind of footage to develop some of the particleillusion effects, etc.

At one point, I found the soft-core nude site, Met-Art and was drawn to one model there who had the innocent and archetypal presence I wanted, so I decided to sign up for their 3-day trial for $10.

This gave me access to download higher res stills, and a couple of her HD vids. One video in particular.

While most of it was embarrassingly cheesy, a few short passages of the clip had some of the more elegantly angelic essence of what I would maybe one day shoot myself.

Having paid for it, I felt it OK to pop the clip into Vegas and start doing my study/development.

I worked many days and hours doing this and showed the rough renders to one or two people via my own secure hidden page at my website (all metatags and bot codes are blank and it cannot be found or viewed without access codes).

It's just more courteous than attaching a vid file to an email to someone.

Vegas Forum Faux Pas

Then I got stumped on something and posted "Q: How Would You Un-Strap This Angel" Woman?" with a 10 second or less long clip from that vid in Flash where I got some useful feedback. I even slapped a rather obnoxious "Not for use or reproduction in any form" banner across it.

Later, I felt that I had subtly violated copyrights, so I removed the live link from said thread. Study or not, I really didn't feel I had a right to show you all this clip.

Now, before I ever worked on the vid, I had worked with some of her stills and had come up with a rather cool movie poster type illustration of one film idea. I added credits to Met-Art for the part of it with her likeness too.

I contacted and showed Met-Art the illustration asking them for permission to use it only as a portfolio piece only. They said no. So I've removed it from said page and show it to no-one.

Stuck In A Can't View or Show Catch-22

I'm worried and stuck with the larger issue I've alluded to above:

--- Even though I did pay for the clip and images, technically speaking, I don't feel I had any right to play with the stills or clips in Vegas at all and feel guilty ever showing any of the studies and effects renders I have to anyone.

Below is the relevant copyright notice from Met-Art -- and I've highlighted the part that seems to apply to my situation. It doesn't mention what a member can do with purchased material, but my understanding is that the same thing applies IMO.

Again, I'm not using any of the stuff for commercial use but feel I can't view or have even a friend or potential model view these development sketches I did. A real bummer.

Maybe I'm being way too hard on myself about all of this -- my anxiety condition has and still does push me to unhealthy tangents at times.

But this situation is still nagging the crap out of me for I prefer erring on the side of do-the-right-thing code of honor than gray zones.
Yet radical, no-go, destroy all the work self-crucifixion doesn't feel good either.

Thanks for your help.


Met-Art Copyrights Text

Hell, I probably violated copyrights by copying the excerpt from it here to this forum so that you guys don't have to wade through the site's page which addresses stuff not related to my Q.

Sheeeezus, damned if you do, damned if you don't. But maybe it's sort of fair use?

I've added a reference link to the original page so I don't twist myself into a pretzel over this.


Images on this Web site are copyrighted by MET-ART.COM and may not be reproduced in any manner without written permission of MET-ART.COM. MET-ART.COM owns copyrights in the selection, arrangement and coordination of such Content. MET-ART.COM permits access to Content that is protected by copyrights, trademarks, and other intellectual property and proprietary rights ("Rights");



farss wrote on 12/22/2007, 3:13 PM
Well their TAC are their TACs!
You're not alone in your quandry, same goes with music, I can, for a significant fee, use anyones music as a temp track. They love you to do this in the hope that the director will develop a case of "temp love" and then they've got you by the dangly bits. They know you want it and they'll milk you for every dime they can. Bottom line is, negotiate the deal before you fall in love, then you've got the upper hand.

Here's a thought though. Signup to A lot of it is hard core but far from all of it and there's some very good artists there whose work you can buy and change easily enough and for not a whole lot of money. So you could build your whole piece digitally right down to the lighting. Then you've got a reference to shoot against. Actually some of the work there is so well done you might find it good enough to avoid the hassle of using real talent, it might even work better than real talent given that a lot of your stuff will be CGI anyway. Trying to merge CGI with live action visually is extremely difficult. If you keep it all real or all CGI is much easier to get the brain to accept what it's seeing.

Getting back to current problem though. I don't know what the limits are to "personal use". It doesn't sound to me like you're at great risk of violating their TAC unless you start using their content for commercial purposes and so far you haven't. Even so what are they going to do, most likely send you a heavy cease and desist letter. Might pay to ferret around and see what others are using the content for.


Soniclight wrote on 12/22/2007, 3:46 PM
Thanks, Farss. I know that I can't do what I thought I could from here on out ,and may or may not consider Renderocity -- from what I've seen before, it's a bit too crude for my kind of stuff, but I'll give it another shot.

But the issue here is what do I do with what little I have now?

I have no intention of using what I've worked on except as stated -- show a friend or potential model/actress. End of story. No public publishing and am not even thinking of Met-Art coming after me for something that isn't going to happen anyway.

My question isn't about getting caught, just the simple ethics of my tiny pathetic situation of some l labored-over stuff sitting in my computer and a couple of .wmv files locked away at a page at my site that no-one can view unless I allow them to.

Which I very, very rarely do anyway.

As stated, I feel I'm violating copyrights even looking at the freakin' .veg file of these few renders.
That's the most neurotic part of my dilemma.
farss wrote on 12/22/2007, 4:29 PM
As I said I don't think you're breaching their terms so take it easy on yourself. In the end what is copyright for. It's to protect the financial and moral rights of those who create works. Are you taking bread from anyones mounth, no. Are you pretending their work is your work, no. Are you making any financial gain, no. Are you doing anything with someone else's work that might offend their intentions, I doubt it.

So keep what you've got, use it for reference. That's done all the time in this business and it's not even a dirty little secret, it's the norm that I read about all the time. "We watched ten classic by .....for inspiration", "I dug up prints of paitings show the DP how I wanted it to look". Copyright is there so artists will continue to create and inspire more artists to create more. It's not there to lock things away in vaults never to be seen and never to be referenced (although you sometimes might wonder about that bit).

Bob Greaves wrote on 12/22/2007, 8:09 PM
There is nothing wrong with loading anything into Vegas as you toy with an idea. But the moment you share a rendered result, you cross the line.

If Met-Art said no you can still experiment all you like. You just can't share those results with anyone.
Soniclight wrote on 12/23/2007, 3:57 PM
"There is nothing wrong with loading anything into Vegas as you toy with an idea. But the moment you share a rendered result, you cross the line. If Met-Art said no you can still experiment all you like. You just can't share those results with anyone."

Just as I feared. Even showing neighbor or friend (or wife if I had one) is copyright infringement..
What a wonderful world :(