aRtBee posted at 10:59AM Tue, 01 September 2015 - #4225754

@Morkonan: I'm aware of the EULA, it does not refer to 3D printing, neither does it refer to 2D rendering or printing thereof. My question "show me the sections" did not ask for "quote the EULA" but "quote the EULA secton that explicitely allows for...". Referring to your first EULA quote, Legit Use is understood as mentioned in a) to g) and 2D rendering is not part of that. And so on.

"Legitimate Use" is also covered by the "Documentation" clause, which necessarily includes the product manual, which describes the program's features and its use. 2D rendering is explicitly understood as being a licensed and "Legitimate Use." (I'm interpreting your "g) and 2D rendering is not part of that" statement as being a request for a reference that shows it is, indeed, specifically "part of" the legitimate uses allowed for in the EULA.)

When the EULA is read closely, it could come to mind that "derived work" and alike are referring to actions and results that leave portions of the 3D mesh intact. When such is not the case, you're free to go.

(If I understand you correctly) According to the EULA, you can not distribute any of the original values (vertice order/coordinates) at all - You're right, there. All you can do regarding copyrighted geometry is construct "morphs" that only contain the delta values to be applied to the original geometry. But, further, you may only, according to the EULA, have limited license to provide these delta values in a manner which contains them within "proprietary" file formats.

For instance, a pz file can contain only delta (changed) values for vertices. This is a proprietary format and distributing morphs with it is specifically allowed under the EULA, since it can only be used by Poser and other legitimate software licensed to use the proprietary file format. However, wavefront object files can also contain only vertice deltas, however they are not specifically provided for in this way under the EULA, since Smith Micro has no legal license to claim copyright over wavefront object files.(They do mention third-party file extensions, somewhere, IIRC.) This is kind of a conundrum, since many morphs have been distributed by using wavefront object files as "morph targets," which are stripped of their actual mesh information and only containing delta values that apply to proprietary geometry. (ie: Opening one of these sorts of "deltas only" .obj files would not yield any geometry at all, since creation of the object relies on referenced geometry that is not present.)

According to the EULA, I could distribute vertice delta values for a morph, but only within proprietary (licenses owned by Smith Micro) formats and only if there was not one actual vertice included in the file. The point being - The resulting "derived work" is completely useless in any other 3D program besides Poser and without the references for the original copyrighted necessary geometry being included with it. In short - It's not possible to use any of the original geometry at all, in any format, in any other program for a use that is not specifically covered in the EULA or in the Documentation. (Manual) However, in the Manual, there are uses for third-party programs that are described and even companion apps one can use for the more popular packages and formats, so there is some "limited use" implied, primarily for creating morphs and rendering 2D images in third-party programs. This is how we are legally able to create morphs and export the figures, materials, uv maps, etc, to other formats for "limited use" (only allowed through the specific mention of such use in the Manual, as outlined by the EULA) in third-party applications. But, because of the distribution clause containing "proprietary formats", we can not distribute them, legally, in any format not specifically licensed by Smith Micro. So, even wavefront object files that contain nothing but the delta values can not, according to this interpretation, be distributed.

But, "common practices", like this, are also precedent and weakens the EULA if it also violates the EULA and as long as Smith Micro is aware of it and chooses not to enforce its own copyright... Though, proving such knowledge might difficult in court. :)

@precisionXXX and @bevans84: I asked those questions too.

On "Personal Use" - Copyright Law generally covers only the distribution, public viewing, and sale or transfer of copyrighted materials. If someone is using something for "personal use", copyright generally is "out of bounds", so long as the person also has a legitimate license to use the copyrighted material "for personal use." That's intrinsically and specifically implied in Poser's EULA and Manual. The only missing component is the explicit bridge between intellectual digital property rights and "material goods."

Because 3D printing is such a new craze, there is little documentation in the EULA/Manual to support "legitimate use" of copyrighted 3D objects being used, personally, by a user to create a true, material, "derivative work" for their own personal use. There are simply few provisions that could be stretched to cover such a use. In my opinion, this is something that would extend into the realm of general Copyright law. Because of the "transportable" nature of the file types, the allowances for alterations, and the inclusion of non-proprietary file types (wavefront object, .3ds, .lwo, etc) who's licenses are third-party and limited, and SM's allowances for personal use, personal use of an asset object for such purposes as 3D-printing is not specifically "forbidden" by the current documentation that I have. (PP2012) BUT, and here's the weird kicker.... I couldn't display it publicly, like in an art gallery or as part of a commercial decoration in a business. And, specifically, also under general copyright law, I could not legally give it to anyone for free nor could I sell it or even loan it to anyone.

In short: I could 3d-Print a Smith Micro figure and look at it in a closed, windowless, locked, room... within my non-legally-binding general interpretations of the EULA, Manual and Copyright Law. :)

Smith Micro needs to come out of the closet on this subject and address the issue, directly and explicitly, just as distributors/producers like DAZ3D and Renderosity have done. Further, they need to provide provisions for extending limited use licenses in order to create standards for "enforceable" copyright claims for their digital products that go beyond the old "boiler-plate" EULA design of "don't touch the .exe file." The community should not be in the position of having to answer their own questions on this topic.