Storyline Images - Ships and ocean waves in heavy sea

[Mille]

Other than that, very good, the models are very nice. But again, i'll ask, are these models your own, and if not, are they GPL'd/do you have permission to use them?

Well, I know that you wait for me to answer, but forum problems now made it for impossible the last two times when i wanted to write something regarding this issue. So sorry for the delay.

In fact this will be a somehow longer and difficult answer than usual and most probably, than you might expected. So before all:

I BASICALLY SEE NO LICENSE PROBLEM IN MY POSTED RENDERS.

I deeply respect copyright issues, and i´m aware that it is necessary to ask at posted images and forums, if this can be ussed, or if there is an infrengement. In fact answering your question needs a lot more than one simple answer. Especially, as it seems to be the first time, that renders might appear here.

To be more detailed:

1.) Have i made the models?

Answer: Indeed the used models are nice, but they are not made by me, but are commercial models. Indeed i never claimed that, and i thought in the Portrait rendering thread i made it already clear, where this models come from. A non exclusive license to use them was bought by me. So its obvious that they are not provided under the GPL and underly copyright restrictions. So I won´t post any model, as long as i don´t make a model completely fromscratch.

2.) So am I allowed to use it for my works?

Honestly, i think by buying the license to use this 3D models give me the right to use this products to produce 2D works. For reference look at the complete basic license for DAZ models here:

http://www.daz3d.com/i.x/faq/0/bpjkghd2 ... vrl6/?id=5

if you want to take this on a closer review.

Basically i think the important quote in the license is this:

You may (i) access, use, copy and modify the 3-D Models stored on such computers at such single location in the creation and presentation of animations and renderings which may require runtime access to the 3-D Model(s), and (ii) incorporate two dimensional images (including two dimensional images that simulate motion of three dimensional objects) derived from the 3-D Model(s) in other works and publish, market, distribute, transfer, sell or sublicense such combined works; provided that you may not in any case: (a) separately publish, market, distribute, transfer, sell or sublicense any 3-D Model(s) or any part thereof; or (b) publish, market, distribute, transfer, sell or sublicense renderings, animations, software applications, data or any other product from which any original 3-D Model(s), or any part thereof, or any substantially similar version of the original 3-D Model(s) can be separately exported, extracted, or de-compiled into any re-distributable form or format. Subject to the foregoing limitations, and the rights, if any, of third parties in or to the objects represented by the 3-D Model(s), you may copy and distribute your animations and renderings derived from the 3-D Model(s).
All other rights with respect to the 3-D Model(s) and their use are reserved to DAZ 3D (and its licensors).

So, to my best knowledge, basically i don´t see a problem in this at all, in general.
Using other models from other sources, or with another license may be a problem and must be reviewed separately.

So if you have a different view, or additional points bring up in this regard, feel free to post it at this place, as i would indeed like know about this.

_____________________
TO BE CONTINUED

[Mille]

Argh, the images are not uploading, you'll have to wait for the picture.

Thank you. I will try to find out how to use them.
In general this sounds really interesting

[thespaceinvader]

WRT the licensing issues etc, i'd have to defer to people who know more about it than me should these images be considered for mainline - i don't know whether the licensing of the models used in creating the iages affects the licensing of the images themselves. But personally i'd err on the side of caution - if you have to pay to use these models, i doubt they'd fit into GPL. IANAL.

WRT the sailing issues... i couldn't say for certain without knowing which way the ship's sailing, how fast they want to get there, and which way the wind's from. But certainly under winds that high, there's enough sail up there to cause the ship to heel massively and probably break some of them sheets. At the very least you'd want to reef in the sails - not take some down and leave some up, but shorten all of them. Put it this way... in my (admittedly limited, but greater than average) experience sailing tall ships, they very VERY rarely have full sail up. They'd only do so when the wind's behind them, and they want to get somewhere FAST, and the wind's not too strong.

Also, the fore-and-aft sails - the ones which are in line with the keel of the ship - would point in a different direction, but again, i can't tell without knowing details of the wind etc. Suffice it to say it looks nigglingly wrong enough to bug me, but i know much more than most about tall ship sailing. I suspect for the majority of wesnoth's audience, it wouldn't make much difference...

It shows real promise, i think. Used alone, scenes like these could fit quite well as story images. With post processing, they could look fantastic.

One last thing o_O that i only just noticed: where is the crew of the ship - under full sail in heavy seas there ought to be at least some hands on deck...

[Mille]

One last thing o_O that i only just noticed: where is the crew of the ship - under full sail in heavy seas there ought to be at least some hands on deck...

Its a ghost ship right now:))) You noticed correctly. They all jump aboard and drowned in the sea:))))

[thespaceinvader]

Lol, i thought it might be. But i think you mean overboard. Jumping aboard would mean they'd all be ON the ship, not off it. (Aboard > On, Overboard > off over the side)

[Mille]

WRT the licensing issues etc, i'd have to defer to people who know more about it than me should these images be considered for mainline - i don't know whether the licensing of the models used in creating the iages affects the licensing of the images themselves. But personally i'd err on the side of caution - if you have to pay to use these models, i doubt they'd fit into GPL. IANAL.

If somebody comes up with a good reason why it is a problem, i might accept it. Telling it is a problem, only because it is derived by using a commercial program is a bit simple i think. As this models are not only provided as simplemodels but as rigged model programms (plugins) having an own installer and so, it would be the same as saying you can´t make a text opensource, because you have written it with word.

I tried to make it most transparent, so i will repeat this sentence of the license, which seems to be important in this regard:

You may .... incorporate two dimensional images (including two dimensional images that simulate motion of three dimensional objects) derived from the 3-D Model(s) in other works and publish, market, distribute, transfer, sell or sublicense such combined works

[Mille]

Lol, i thought it might be. But i think you mean overboard. Jumping aboard would mean they'd all be ON the ship, not off it. (Aboard > On, Overboard > off over the side)

You mean the rats coming back??? Oh my god!!! )))

[Mille]

OK, let's try for external source:

Well i really tried to find out how to use them, but im pretty unsure about this.

So if can help me out with a relative short additional info i would be happy:)
I have to use them in Bryce, but i don´t know how. Somehow i think my problem in this is that the things have different names there, or doesn´t i simply find them?

[Sgt. Groovy]

My approach will only work if you're making the sea surface from a height map (a matrix of figures denoting the heights of the mesh nodes). In that case, you can open the height map as an b/w image in a 2-D image manipulation program (GIMP, PS etc.) and apply the filter there. Use the edge-detection image as a mask on a foam texture, and take it back to you 3-D program, to be projected on the sea surface from above.

If you're creating the water procedurally in the 3-D program, you can still make the height map by making a top-down isometric rendering of the sea surface, shaded by height (the lowes point being black and highest white).

[Mille]

My approach will only work if you're making the sea surface from a height map (a matrix of figures denoting the heights of the mesh nodes). In that case, you can open the height map as an b/w image in a 2-D image manipulation program (GIMP, PS etc.) and apply the filter there. Use the edge-detection image as a mask on a foam texture, and take it back to you 3-D program, to be projected on the sea surface from above.

If you're creating the water procedurally in the 3-D program, you can still make the height map by making a top-down isometric rendering of the sea surface, shaded by height (the lowes point being black and highest white).

ok - i will try this again.

[Sgt. Groovy]

I'll break it apart once more, just to be sure:

The problem: you need a way to make the foam texture transparent everywhere else than where the wave crests are.

Solution: finding the crests by applying an edge-detection filter (Gaussian difference works nicely) on the heightmap of the water surface, represented as a b/w image (PNG). Can be accomplished on a 2-D program. The result of the edge-detection is used as a mask on the foam texture (the texture image must be the size of the water surface, can't be repeated).

If you don't have the heightmap ready (you created the surface by other means), you'll have to make it by rendering the surface from top down, shaded so that lowest points are black and highest are white (make a z-map out of it, by 3-D rendering terminology).

[pauxlo]

First, IANAL, too.

Other than that, very good, the models are very nice. But again, i'll ask, are these models your own, and if not, are they GPL'd/do you have permission to use them?

[...]
2.) So am I allowed to use it for my works?

Honestly, i think by buying the license to use this 3D models give me the right to use this products to produce 2D works. For reference look at the complete basic license for DAZ models here:

http://www.daz3d.com/i.x/faq/0/bpjkghd2 ... vrl6/?id=5

if you want to take this on a closer review.

Basically i think the important quote in the license is this:

(this is in Point 4, if someone else is searching.)

You may (i) access, use, copy and modify the 3-D Models stored on such computers at such single location in the creation and presentation of animations and renderings which may require runtime access to the 3-D Model(s), and (ii) incorporate two dimensional images (including two dimensional images that simulate motion of three dimensional objects) derived from the 3-D Model(s) in other works and publish, market, distribute, transfer, sell or sublicense such combined works; provided that you may not in any case: (a) separately publish, market, distribute, transfer, sell or sublicense any 3-D Model(s) or any part thereof; or (b) publish, market, distribute, transfer, sell or sublicense renderings, animations, software applications, data or any other product from which any original 3-D Model(s), or any part thereof, or any substantially similar version of the original 3-D Model(s) can be separately exported, extracted, or de-compiled into any re-distributable form or format. Subject to the foregoing limitations, and the rights, if any, of third parties in or to the objects represented by the 3-D Model(s), you may copy and distribute your animations and renderings derived from the 3-D Model(s).
All other rights with respect to the 3-D Model(s) and their use are reserved to DAZ 3D (and its licensors).

So, to my best knowledge, basically i don´t see a problem in this at all, in general.
Using other models from other sources, or with another license may be a problem and must be reviewed separately.

As I understand this Model-license, you are allowed to use it in any way to create 2D-images, as long as there is no way to reconstruct the 3D models. So, from the DAZ 3D-side, there is no problem.
The other side of the medal is the GNU GPL.
It may be the case that from the GPL viewpoint, it may be necessary to distribute also the "source code" of generated images:

The “source code” for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. “Object code” means any non-source form of a work.

The source code for your image would be the 3D model, the JPEG is the object form, as I understand.

I'm not really sure wether you (as the copyright holder and licensor) are required to offer such source code form, or wether this only applies to licensees which got the source from you and want to redistribute the "object form".

Maybe some GPL-gurus may want to comment on this.

[Mille]

First, IANAL, too.

[...]
2.) So am I allowed to use it for my works?

Honestly, i think by buying the license to use this 3D models give me the right to use this products to produce 2D works. For reference look at the complete basic license for DAZ models here:

http://www.daz3d.com/i.x/faq/0/bpjkghd2 ... vrl6/?id=5

if you want to take this on a closer review.

Basically i think the important quote in the license is this:

(this is in Point 4, if someone else is searching.)

You may (i) access, use, copy and modify the 3-D Models stored on such computers at such single location in the creation and presentation of animations and renderings which may require runtime access to the 3-D Model(s), and (ii) incorporate two dimensional images (including two dimensional images that simulate motion of three dimensional objects) derived from the 3-D Model(s) in other works and publish, market, distribute, transfer, sell or sublicense such combined works; provided that you may not in any case: (a) separately publish, market, distribute, transfer, sell or sublicense any 3-D Model(s) or any part thereof; or (b) publish, market, distribute, transfer, sell or sublicense renderings, animations, software applications, data or any other product from which any original 3-D Model(s), or any part thereof, or any substantially similar version of the original 3-D Model(s) can be separately exported, extracted, or de-compiled into any re-distributable form or format. Subject to the foregoing limitations, and the rights, if any, of third parties in or to the objects represented by the 3-D Model(s), you may copy and distribute your animations and renderings derived from the 3-D Model(s).
All other rights with respect to the 3-D Model(s) and their use are reserved to DAZ 3D (and its licensors).

So, to my best knowledge, basically i don´t see a problem in this at all, in general.
Using other models from other sources, or with another license may be a problem and must be reviewed separately.

As I understand this Model-license, you are allowed to use it in any way to create 2D-images, as long as there is no way to reconstruct the 3D models. So, from the DAZ 3D-side, there is no problem.
The other side of the medal is the GNU GPL.
It may be the case that from the GPL viewpoint, it may be necessary to distribute also the "source code" of generated images:

The “source code” for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. “Object code” means any non-source form of a work.

The source code for your image would be the 3D model, the JPEG is the object form, as I understand.

I'm not really sure wether you (as the copyright holder and licensor) are required to offer such source code form, or wether this only applies to licensees which got the source from you and want to redistribute the "object form".

Maybe some GPL-gurus may want to comment on this.

Heavy tobac i think

Well - Thank you for your review on this first. So before i would like to comment some things, i like to ask the moderators to review, if it makes sense to split the essential license discussion here into an own thread, as i think, this is a real important question in general. I´m not sure as this makes sense already, but the basic question and the additional question in respect to the GPL pauxlo came up with is both interesting and important, and in regard of images derived from 3D objects i haven´t seen this discussed anywhere else before.


So even if i don´t have the same impression as pauxlo on this, i generally agree that i see possible problems with the GPL in respect of included media content, both regarding graphics, sounds, animations and everything else in this regard perhaps. So i ask if we should tag the commited images here by me, as well as in the portrait rendering thread, for now, as NOT released under the GPL and under a general license review that is worth to discuss, until the question is eventually solved?
Indeed i see no reason to remove them now, as this is a more or the less theoretical question in most regard.

GET ME RIGHT - I DON´T BASH WITH GPL in general. I HIGHLY ADMIRE IT TO BE ONE OF THE GREATEST INVENTIONS IN REGARD OF LIBERATING KNOWLEDGE

So the general question is, if there is a problem with media to be released under GPL in general and in special regard to render 2D images that where created from 3D models:

1.) MY PERSONAL VIEW ON GPL and media content

The GPL is a clear software license. As this i always found it plain stupid to release any graphical content under a software license, i can understand, that its quite normal that all modern programms include media content, which is included in the license bundle software. In fact i see no general problem on this, but as well as don´t see a general license problem with included media content under the GPL, i think it makes it really difficult to understand the subtleties of the GPL in this regard in some cases.

My PERSONAL opinion in this regard is, to simply use two licenses for GPL software. One for the program itself and one for the media content. How this additional license may look is another question. I´m still quite unsure what to think about those SHAREALIKE LICENSES.

2.) What pauxlo says about the GPL and image source code i don´t see this way. The citation you inserted is from the Terms and Definitions part of the license. This is a strong simplification of the issue in general and the rest of the GPL must be taken as well, to review the question brought up. In fact i don´t see the special problem you came up with, but that doesn´t mean you are wrong. It simply means that you interpret it in a different way than me. My interpretation would be, that the image is the image iitself, and there simply never was sourcecode released, so there can´t be a problem. I also might say, that the image is the soruce code and you are allowed to change it. Both ways i see no problem, but thats my interpretation. Would like to hear, if there are others:)

3.) So why do i see a potential problem

Well, I´m not quite sure if i´m at least able to make my viewpoint clear, as it is a very complex issue, but i try:=)

So my question is mostly related to the copyright issue of the GPL and to the way it is handled. In respect to rendered 3D images i see, that i´m allowed to use the created content the way i want, but i don´t have the copyright to the original content. So when i create an image from an 3d object, do i have the copyright to that image ? Im pretty sure i have - But are there also other copyrights included? I´m not sure. So the basic MAJOR question for me in regard to the GPL would be, if i´m giving away a copyright, or a copyright permission or just a license to use and modify an image when releasing it uner the GPL?
As far as i see i don´t give away a copyright when licensing an image under the GPL. At least i can´t find anything stating such in the GPL. In
fact, if you would give away a copyright with the GPL i would see major problems. Both in the described 3D scenario, as well as in respect to the
international copyright laws, as in many countries copyright laws doens´t provide the possibility to give away or transfer copyrights other than in the casea of a heir.

So licensing under GPLis mostly a simple licesing issue in respect of transferring copyright permissions of use. Most likely you give away the right to distribute and modify. So again i see NO problem with this in regard of the DAZ license or many other commercial rendering tools and commercially sold models, as long as you get the copyright permissions to distribute and modify.

I would really like to hear comments from the GPL gurus as well, as i know there are around here:)

[VS]

IMO if the interpretation is that gpl requires you to distribute the models as well, then wesnoth already breaks it because its pictures were edited in some software using layers and other information, not included in PNG, which makes the intermediate format used for editing a "source" as well.

That said, I am neither a gpl guru nor a lawyer.

[Sgt. Groovy]

From the GPL Faq:

Can I use the GPL for something other than software?

You can apply the GPL to any kind of work, as long as it is clear what constitutes the "source code" for the work. The GPL defines this as the preferred form of the work for making changes in it.

For me it's pretty clear that "source" and "object" refer to code, whereas the images distributed with the program are data. GPL doesn't make a clear distinction between the two however, but since "source" is anything you need to recreate and modify the "object", one can claim that since images can be modified as such without reverse-engineering anything, they count as both "source" and "object."