HOME | DD
Trackdancer — MMD is your model protected by US Copyright Laws?
Published: 2013-03-16 12:41:07 +0000 UTC; Views: 38995; Favourites: 54; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
body div#devskin0 hr { }
WHAT'S THIS ALL ABOUTThis all started when I saw a page created by RaikuHoshigami in which he presented the Terms of Usage which Japanese modeler Arlvit uses in the readme.txt that accompanies his model of Touhou character Sakuya Izayoi for MMD.
The original page and the discussion that lead to the writing of this journal can be viewed here:
To keep this brief, basically I found it an interesting exercise to see exactly how valid those terms really are from a purely legal sense, and by extension how valid other rules created by other MMD modelers and MMD model editors actually are. Note that I prefixed the last two groups with "MMD" and that is because this article will only discuss models made specifically for MMD (Miku Miku Dance). These restrictions and definitions are necessary for reasons that should be obvious as you read on.
MMD AS AN ART FORMMMD is a rather unique "art form" in that it grew out of the Japanese culture of "Doujinshi". More importantly for our discussion here are the following two concepts that are closely tied to MMD:
(1) MMD is an hobby that requires the use of components in projects that require the participation of many individuals. Due to the technical complexties inherent in computer animation, rarely is a project the sole work of a single individual. Probably 99.99% of all MMD related works are community projects in one manner or another. This does not necessarily mean that all participants are active contributors. Most resources for MMD projects are created by content creators who upload their contributions to popular resource download sites such as Deviant Art.
(2) MMD related works can generally be catergorized as FAN ART or derivative works because of the nature of the resources available for it. And this is where most of the problems with MMD begins.
What it comes down to is this: "How do we share these resources?"
And there is no single consensus within the MMD community as to what is and what isn't permissible to do with resources which has lead to a lot of controversy on this subject both within Japan and outside of Japan. This is because in many ways MMD is a new type of "art", perhaps one which hitherto has no precedence especially since it is an art form that is made only possible in its current manifestation because of the existence of the Internet.
MMD is also very popular, so people from all ages, backgrounds and cultures are attracted to this activity bringing along with it a multitude of belief and values systems which may not be mutually compatible. Hence, misunderstandings and outright abuses have arisen and probably will continue to happen which is why a lot of content creators, including myself, have a vested interest in protecting their works or contributions.
So the question that begs to be asked is can MMD models be protected by Law? And on closer examination the answer is "it depends" ...
CLASSES OF MODELSIt depends on what the nature of the model is, and we can break this down into several basic groups. To keep this discussion brief we will examine "character" models by way of illustration as these are probably of the greatest interest for those who read this article. Do note that by extension the same principles will apply to other types of models. Furthermore these definitions are, for most intents and purposes, my definitions only.
[CLASS 1] ORIGINAL MODELS: The subject of the model can be either a "proprietary" character or an "original" character that the modeler owns or is officially authorized to use. The model itself is an original work. An example of a model of an original proprietary character is the model of Cul by LAT (vocarevo.com/culproject/profil… ), which was created by the model maker for and distributed by the copyright owners of the character. A good example of an original "original" character model is Usausa created by Japanese model Kanihira (mikumikudance.wikia.com/wiki/U… ).
Picture: UsaUsa by Kanihira - Original Character belonging to the modeler. This model is automatically protected by US Copyright Laws.
[CLASS 2] DERIVATIVE MODELS (Licensed): These are generally original models of characters that were not created by the modelers who made the models, but were allowed to do so under some form of licensing mechanism. By way of example, almost all Miku Hatsune models fall into this category. Note that the definition used here is that the model itself usually has to be an original work, it generally cannot be a conversion made from another existing model.
Picture: Kiku by Nakao - permission to use the character is covered by Crypton Future Media, Inc.'s license. The model is actually an edit but it uses original parts made by Nakao himself. This model is automatically protected by US Copyright Laws.
[CLASS 3] DERIVATIVE MODELS (Unlicensed): These are fan made original models of proprietary characters which were not officially sanctioned by the copyright owners. A good example of this is the Touhou model by Arvlit which was noted at the top of this article. Many MMD models made to represent characters from anime or games also fall into this category. Note that the definition used here is that the model itself usually has to be an original work, it generally cannot be a conversion made from another existing model.
Picture: KOS-MOS by Nameko_numeri. Franchise - Xenosaga anime. Fan Art derivative work - original model. I do not know if this model can or cannot be legally protected under copyright laws. Please see the Arvlit discussion below.
[CLASS 4] DERIVATIVE OF A DERIVATIVE OR ORIGINAL MODEL: Almost all the models available for download on DA fall into this category. These are models that are variants of existing models made to represent either different versions of the original model or a totally different character. The key characteristics of these models are that they use primarily existing models or existing model parts although the resultant model may use original textures. They are also commonly referred to as edits. There are possibly hundreds of examples of these and also note that many chibi models fall into this category. Additionally some models in this category may have originated as resources created for other products. This is a complex area which I will not go into detail here.
Picture: Kirazuki by Shioku-990 Original character made from parts of other models. If all parts are legal to use, this model is automatically protected under US Copyright Laws.
[CLASS 5] ILLEGAL MODELS: This category includes all models ripped from games or edited from other models without the authorization of the copyright owners.
Almost all PD (Project Diva) and DT (Dreamy Theater) models of popular Vocaloid models will fall into this category as will any edit of a Windows100% magazine model made available for distribution without the knowledge or consent of the copyright owners.
Note also that models that fail to qualify for the conditions as set in the classes may above also fall into this category.
In addition, legal models that are distributed without authorization are also in this category. Simply put, you cannot distribute other peoples' models without their consent even if you do so without changing the contents of the distribution package.
Picture: Luka cosplay as Laura Croft by Danthrox . Unauthorized use of a proprietary character. Model base is a rip from a game by SEGA. Laura Croft costume and weapons were ripped from another game. This model cannot be protected under US Copyright Laws.
EXACTLY WHAT RIGHTS DO A COPYRIGHT OWNER HAVE?Before proceeding further we have to examine exactly what rights are actually given to a copyright owner. They US Copyright Act essentially gives copyright owners six rights:
(1) The exclusive right to reproduce
(2) The exclusive right to prepare derivative works
(3) The exclusive right to distribute
(4) The exclusive right of public performance
(5) The exclusive right of display
(6) The exclusive right of public performance of sound recordings
It is very important to note that copyrights can be shared and delegated by the legal copyright owners.
So given that this is the case, can an unlicensed/unauthorized derivative work (or specifically what we're interested in, fan art) be protected? Well in most cases, the simple answer is "no". However, ...
WHAT CAN BE PROTECTED AND TO WHAT EXTENT?Lets go back to the categories I've listed above and see what can be protected legally.
[CLASS 1] Yes can be protected.
These are original or authorized works and are protected to the fullest extent as permitted by Law.
[CLASS 2] Yes can be protected, limitations may apply.
These are licensed works subject to the terms of the licensed under which it is covered. Most official vocaloid characters are covered under these types of licenses.
[CLASS 3] May be possible to protect.
These need to be treated on a case-by-case basis. There is a certain "gray area" in the copyright legislation and a lot of the works in this class falls into this area.
In the example of Arvlit's Touhou model, which I referenced above, the model itself is original even though the character is not. However, Touhou is "special" as the copyright owner, ZUN, has a long record of supporting or sanctioning donji works which Arvlit's model falls under. So by extenstion Arvlit's model can be regarded as "legal" to an extent as it can be argued that the work is done with "tacit consent", unless ZUN says otherwise.
The question that begs to be asked is whether the model can be protected by Copyright Laws. I cannot definitively answer this question. Part of the answer lies in whether the model can be definitively protected under Japanese Copyright Laws as I believe it probably cannot be protected by US Copyright Laws given this particular scenario. If ZUN has in writing somewhere that he permits derivative works based on his intellectual property there will be no issue. I personally do not know enough about the Touhou franchise to know exactly what the Zun's policies are.
But it's not as simple as that, and the problem lies in the fact that the model is an original work. Arvlit owns the model (specifically the model data), period, no debate there - and this gives him certain rights - it is his property and to a point he can do with it as he sees fit. All Arvlit needs to do is to say that this is a model named "Mona" (for example) rather than use the model's Touhou name and this model arguably could be automatically moved to [Class 1].
Honestly, I do not have the legal expertise to definitively answer this question. Nevertheless, the work should be treated as protected until there is a definitive answer from a legal expert; and in any case, it is always a good policy to respect the wishes of the model maker. As such, his rules apply as they do not exceed those rights that would normally be granted to a copyright holder.
[CLASS 4] Needs to be examined on a case-by-case basis.
This category affects DA MMDers the most. Each edit really needs to be examined on a case-by-case basis. If the edit uses parts which original modelers have permitted to be used, the edit is legal. If, however, the model use a single illegal part, then in all likelihood it cannot be protected. Which is one of the main reasons why myself and others have long argued against improperly ripping parts from 3D Custom Girl models and also not giving proper credit for sources.
Additionally, if you have the explicit permission of the original modeler, whether this is derived through direct contact or via a readme.txt, in most cases your edit of the model is legal and your model can be protected so long as you keep to the terms imposed by the original modeler and/or any applicable licenses.
Note also that you only own your edit and that you do not have exclusive rights. Only those rights permitted to you by extension. In general, these will be the rights to:
> Restrict distribution
> Restrict copying (of the model or parts thereof)
> Restrict modification (in whole or in part)
> Restrict usage (no violence, no porn, etc.)
Furthermore you will most likely will not have the following rights:
> Claim the the model is an original work (it is not, it is a derivative work and must be identified as such including attributing the original modeler and/or copyright owners correctly)
> Sell the model or otherwise profit financially from it (except under a license agreement with the copyright owner)
Which brings me to another pet peeve. Quit trying to sell prints of pictures of MMD models! In 99.99% of cases, these models cannot be used for commercial purposes.
[CLASS 5] Cannot be protected.
As the Law is written, works that outright infringe on the copyrighted works of others cannot be protected. The natural implication of this is that the "rules" imposed by model editors doing these types of works can be completely ignored.
Note that doesn't mean you can do whatever with the model either because your action is just compounding the problem and cannot be morally or legally justified anymore than the actions of the original violator of the work. Both parties in these instances are infringing on the lawful rights of the legal copyrignt owners.
THE CHARTSo now we can create a simple chart that can be used as a quick reference to determine if a model can be protected by Copyright Laws. Please feel free to use this as a guideline for your own reference. Do note that the chart is issued under a CC-BY-NC-ND license and that I cannot be held liable for any consequences from its use or misuse thereof.
THE CHART SHOULD ONLY BE USED TO GIVE A GUIDELINE. IT CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT BE SEEN AS BEING ABLE TO GIVE A DEFINITIVE LEGAL DECISION AS TO WHETHER A MODEL CAN BE OR CANNOT BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT LAWS.
CHIBISI love chibi models, but where do these fall in under my classification scheme since most chibis are derivative works of original works? Most will fall into the [Class 4] category; but to demonstrate how the chart can be used I will classify the ones that I use the most often.
CHIBI Append Miku (Tda): [Class 2] Official derivative by the original modeler.
CHIBI Appearance Miku (petite version): [Class 4] This is my edit of Oyuugi01's edit of Mamama's appearance Miku. It's a derivative work of a derivative work, which is why I have never released it for distribution. In order to do that I will need the consent of both parties noted. Note that the act of editing the model is not illegal, but I have no rights of redistribution simply because of the route that I took in creating my version.
CHIBI Miku (Animasa): [Class 4] There are two versions of this chibi Miku in my gallery. Both are legal edits because of the way Crypton Future Media, Inc.'s license covering the use of their Vocaloids work. Do note, however, that the use of these models are totally subject to the Terms imposed by that license. Of note is I cannot, and by extension, others cannot use them commercially. Additionally, they need to be used within certain moral guidelines, in particular no porn, no excessive violence or in anyway that would reflect badly on the copyright owner.
CHIBI Gumi (petite version): [Class 4] Based on Mamama's model my edit was faithful to the stipulations under which Mamama permits the editing of his models. Please note that my edit is very similar in appearance to the CHIBI Gumi edit by YamiSweet . There are functional differences and of course the size of the two models are different. Both, however, are original derivative works. Incidently, YamiSweet 's version also falls into the [Class 4] category.
CHIBI IA (petite version): [Class 4] This edit is by Kiyo derived from modeler Mqdl's original model of IA. This model is protected work as it was done within the permissions allowed for by Mqdl.
Picture: CHIBI Appearance Miku [Class 4], CHIBI Gumi [Class 4], CHIBI IA [Class 4], Telstar Stage [Class 1] - all these models can be protected under US Copyright Laws. See description in text above for details.
PERMISSIONSIf in the course of your own editing work, when you use this chart as a reference as to where your model may stand legally and encounter a concern, always consider the option of soliciting explicit permissions.
So as in the example I've given above with reference to my version of Chibi Appearance Miku (petite version), to enable me to share the model, all I need to do is to contact the original parties to seek their expressed permissions to distribute the model. I cannot assume that I have the right to do this just based off Mamama's permissions as given in his readme.txt simply because my version is derived not just from Mamama's work but from Oyuugi01's work which includes some features not included in Mamama's original model. One needs to respect the efforts made by all parties.
IF MY WORK CAN BE PROTECTED WHAT RULES CAN I WRITE OR IMPOSE?Under US Law, you cannot try to assert more rights over your work than what the Copyright Act permits. And these have already been listed above. Furthermore, Fair Use guidelines may apply when someone uses your work without your expressed permission or knowledge. In case it is not obvious, Fair Use legally curtails some of your rights.
In general, you have a right to be credited if someone uses your work. Work that are covered under some licenses also mandate that credit be given. So for example all works covered under a Creative Commons license requires attribution to the original copyright owner. Failure to do this immediately revokes the license and your rights to use that work.
You also have the right to restrict the work from being used commercially, especially if your work is a derivative work you should state clearly that this is prohibited.
You also have some say on who may or may not redistribute your work as well as if you allow editing. BE VERY CAREFUL with allowing editing if your work is a derivative work as it is very possible that you don't have the right to allow editing even though you may have the right to prohibit editing. Think this through and I think you'll see that this actually makes perfect sense. Which is why I do a /facepalm whenever I see something like this (and note I just picked the following examples by clicking on the "Browse more like this" panel at random so I'm not picking on anyone deliberately):
credit me
link back
edit all you want
OK ... I will be very generous here and will assume that it was ok to convert this model in the first place. If this is a legal conversion, it will be in [Class 4]. Be very careful with conversions. In most instances, you will have no rights or very limited rights over the work even if the copyright owner permits conversions. This is because with most converted works, no substantial work was needed in making the conversion.
Anyway, let's look at the "terms":
credit me ... ok but do note that the original copyright owner isn't even mentioned anywhere which already can be construed as an infringement of copyright in some jurisdictions.
link back ... no harm here, but can actually be ignored as this is not a legally enforceable requirement
edit all you want ... NO ABSOLUTELY NOT; this person does not have the right to pass on this permission. This can only be done by the original copyright owner especially since the model comes from a commercial source.
The proper way of doing this can be seen in this example:
This example shows how a responsible model editor takes pain to properly annotate and credit their work. Seriously we "need more like this". On the chart this would be a [Class 4] with proper permissions. This allows (specific to this example) the model editor to pass on the right to create other derivative works directly off their work.
But what if you find a term that lies outside what is normally permitted by Copyright Laws? I'll use as an illustration the problems that could be associated with this by using as an example Montecore's usual stipulation on the use of his Luka model. He states that if the model is to be used in a portrayal of a relationship the model can only be shown in a lesbian relationship. (Please note that this is not a critism of Montecore, merely an examination of this particular stipulation that was included in his Term of Usage for this model).
First off, this could be interpreted as a breach of one of the Terms in the license agreement issued by Luka's copyright owners. Since, they do not seem to have said anything on the subject we cannot ascertain exactly what their actual stance is on this point. However, in some legal jusrisdictions, this stipulation could actually be judged as "immoral" and hence, illegal and by implication, the model itself could be "illegal" unless the stipulation is removed.
So the point here is that in drafting out your own Terms of Use, be very careful if you try to impose something that is not normally permitted by Copyright statues.
ARE USERS BOUND BY YOUR RULES?If your model is eligible for copyright protection then yes - in fact, a simple copyright notice will suffice (eg. (c) John Doe 2013). Oh BTW - be careful with the phrase "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED" - don't use it unless you actually have all the rights.
If you want to reinforce the "rules" you can do so in the readme.txt which you should ALWAYS include in your distribution package. This document is important as it is the one of the only proofs that the model is yours. It should clearly identify you as the originator of the model if it is an original work or as the editor in the case of a derivative work. You can use your real name or a REGISTERED screen name such as your DeviantID or one that you regularly use on one of the social networks. The document should also include a date.
If your model is a derivative work, it is usually a good idea, or at least good manners to include the ORIGINAL readme.txt.
If you have rules that are outside of those normally allowed for by existing copyright legislation, then you need to consider other methods to enforce your rules. You cannot rely on a readme.txt to relay your Terms as it can be interpreted as a "contract of adhesion" - in other words a one-sided contract. In some US Jusrisdictions these are unenforceable. The concept here is that the end-user must agree to the terms before using the model and they cannot agree if they cannot see the terms before hand. So you can either put the rules on your model download page or use a distribution package that includes a "I ACCEPT" button. Another method is to put the readme.txt on the main level of your distribution package and the model files in a subfolder. The logic here is that they have the option of reading the documentation before choosing to install the model.
As an example of one acceptable method of distribution, my models use a Creative Commons License. The license is detailed on the model's download page (in the right hand column of the page) and anyone can review the license at anytime. Once someone downloads the model, they have in fact agreed to be bound by the Terms of the license. If they didn't read it or were not aware of the existence of the license - tough, stupidity is not an excuse. If they then breach the Terms of Use then they lose the rights to use the model simply because it then becomes a breach of the license agreement which specifically states that all terms must be adhered to.
SO WHAT CAN I DO IF SOMEONE VIOLATES MY RULES?Contrary to what most people may think, even freeware models are protected by copyrights subject of course to what we discussed above. If someone breaks your rules or otherwise infringes on your copyrights, you do have other recourses other than sueing them.
Your first step is to contact them and ask them to rectify the situation. if they refuse to comply or comply in a timely manner, simply file a DMCA Take Down Order against them which you are entitled to do if you are the copyright owner of the work under dispute. If you aren't the copyright owner tough, you're up the creek.
The DMCA Take Down Order process is free. It is basically a letter and there are many sites on the Internet that teaches you how to go around creating one. DA will only act against an infringement if issued with a valid DMCA Take Down Order. Other sites may have other policies but work along a similar principle (they have to by Law). Issuing a DMCA without authorization or falsely representing yourself as the legal copyright owner has severe legal conseqences so don't even think of using this method as a joke.
If you are a minor, please consult with a legal professional before taking these steps. I am not sure if minors are permitted to issue DMCA Take Down Orders even though minors can be legal copyright owners.
CONCLUSIONSI hope you have found this article useful. This topic is in reality very complex even for legal experts. In creating the chart I am hoping to increase awareness that we all need to be aware that we are working with in most instances copyright protected works and that it will encourage MMDers to be more respectful of the works that have been so generously made available for us to use and to reinforce the need to respect the wishes of original model makers as well as those who create legal derivative works from them.
Please feel free to comment and point out any errors that I have made. Do, however, refrain from asking me how legal a specific model is, the chart should be able to answer your question, and in any case, I am not a legal expert and have no qualification that would enable to make a definitive judgement on the legalities of other peoples' work.
CLOSING THOUGHTSWhenever I download or "shop" for models to use in MMD, I always examine the Terms of Use stipulated by the model maker or editor. If I find the terms unreasonable, I simply delete the model and look for an alternative.
Incidently, this is why I do not support Japanese modelers that include readme.txt that reads along the lines of "If you don't understand Japanese ...". Plenty of choices out there without having to deal with xenophobic or racist crap like that.
Ultimately, if you want other people to respect your work, you have to start off by respecting other people and other peoples work. Especially in a diverse multi-national, cross-culture environment like MMD.
CREDITSRaikuHoshigami for suggesting that I write this article
Wikipedia - various articles on copyright, derivative work, fan art and doujinshi culture
www.creativecommons.org
www.thecopyrightsite.org
Columbia University Copyright Advisory Office
US Copyright Office website
DISCLAIMER:The views presented here are my own and I am making no representation that anything written here should be construed to be Legal Advice. I am not a lawyer and cannot give Legal Advice. Furthermore, anything presented here may be subject to correction from a qualified expert in Law.
Note also the discussion on the Law is presented only from the perspective of US Law simply because that is the jurisdiction in which I reside. Therefore, please treat the information presented here as being for discussion purposes only and the views presented are mine alone which are worth for all intents and purposes 2 cents.
Related content
Comments: 94
I have a question...
Is it true,that just because you used someones part for a model you make,they can control what you do with it?Further more is it really legal for them to rip you of ownership just because you used one of their parts for it? Cus in more then one case i have come across people that say they can sue you over a model part and force you to take it down by law..if they want to, if you fail to credit or choose to sell the model you made,and basically tell me that they can do whatever they want with my models because they own the rights to it,not me and even gone as far as to tell me the models will never be mine...and i have no control over the models..yet they could turn around and sell the models cus apparently using their part gives them the rights to it....and i apparently have no say so in the matter regarding what to do with it...
I ask this because i put alot of time and effort of my own to useing these parts to create a finished project but apparently that dobt matter because i used other people parts,i just think a person who put the model parts toward making something bigger should be able to take a lil credit themselves but according to atleast 70 percent of the mmd community apparently i am not allowed to even say the finished model is mine...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Is it true,that just because you used someones part for a model you make,they can control what you do with it?
>It really depends on the situation; but in very general terms, if you used someone else's work in your model, they do have some say over what you can do with your model. But how much say depends on a lot of different factors.
Cus in more then one case i have come across people that say they can sue you over a model part and force you to take it down by law..
>99% of the time, you can call their bluff on this one. Suing people costs a lot of money and can take a long time.
if you fail to credit or choose to sell the model you made,and basically tell me that they can do whatever they want with my models because they own the rights to it,not me and even gone as far as to tell me the models will never be mine
>Fail to credit is rude, but not a crime. Selling a model with other people's parts in it is a breach of copyright law. They don't own rights over your work, even if their parts are embedded in your model. You made the model, it's your model. They made the part and offered it for download and you used it, well, you did nothing wrong. BTW, can they prove they made the part? Very often in MMD, parts are ripped off of commercial models.
yet they could turn around and sell the models cus apparently using their part gives them the rights to it...
>no they cannot sell your model(s) just because you used their parts. No more that you can sell the model since you used their parts.
but according to atleast 70 percent of the mmd community apparently i am not allowed to even say the finished model is mine...
> 70% of the Western MMDC don't know squat about what the Law says. In fact, copyright laws are incredibly complex and it really needs a lawyer to decipher it all; so relax. As long as you're stealing other people's work and calling it your own work, you're doing nothing wrong. If your model uses parts that are freely offered for download, the finished model is still considered your work. You have every right to expect to be acknowledged and credited for your effort. But selling it something much more complicated legally if you used other people's parts or IP.
and i apparently have no say so in the matter regarding what to do with it..
>you do have a say. Tell them to take a walk off a plank and jump into a dry lake or else come back and argue their case either having hired a lawyer or earning a law degree.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you very much i appreciate you taking the time to answer these questions,i feel much better about my mmd work now thank you again,and i hope you have a Happy Thanksgiving.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'm curious, how would this relate to Japanese doujin websites like DLSite.com or Melonbooks where copyrighted MMD models are sold digitally fairly often? Is that fine because they are Japanese based sites (and as long as the model is not stolen/edited of course)?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I think it's safer to trade with your original character's Unity / VRChat model without using the intellectual property of other companies.
Because you can avoid the license of PMX Editor and PMX format and the copyrights of other companies.
It may be safe if the right holder has a sweet intellectual character like Kantai Collection, Kemono Friends and Touhou Project.
However, it is easy to avoid strict copyrighted characters like Disney and SSSS Gridman, but like Umamusume, there are concerns about when the rights holder will change the policy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Is that fine because they are Japanese based sites (and as long as the model is not stolen/edited of course)?
This is an excellent question. From a legal standpoint, doujin works are usually in-breach of copyrights, but they get away with it because these works may have value to the copyright owners; it's good PR for the owners of the IP.
The anime/manga industry is a multi-billion dollar industry. They're not going to be harmed financially by a few fans making a couple of bucks selling fan-art at an anime convention or modeler's selling an MMD model of their characters. Don't try this in the US though, you'll probably be clobbered by cease and desist orders or outright sued for money.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah I had a feeling it was something like that, doujin content really is an interesting area if you think about it... very unique. Anyway, thanks for the reply!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Heyo, no idea if you can help me, MMD used to be a hobby a couple of years and now I do other stuff and started streaming. I want to make "alerts" for my stream with the low experience I have from MMD, I want to make money someday but the alerts are free, I mean, people don't need to pay to trigger them or to watch them on screen. It is ok to create the alerts?
Sorry if I dont get to the point, have been reading a while and no idea how to ask... and English is not my mother language so... sorry for any mistake.
Have a good day!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
As long as you don't use copyright protected material, you should be fine.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh, ok, thank you for your reply!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I don't see any way someone could prove another person is using his model and did not make a similar copy from scratch. Anyone could simply download a model, do some edits, save it in a different file format and say it was an original creation made from scratch.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What you just described above is totally illegal.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's not the point. I mean it can be illegal, but there are over 7 billion people arround the world and over 150 countries with different laws.
Anyone could do that and it would be naive to think otherwise, I don't see why people even bother on posting licences for their models. What if a guy in Venezuela or Afganistan steals the model and claims it as his own?
It's absurd to belive everyone is going to respect the license and even if they live in Europe or the US it is impossible to prove the guy commited a crime as there would be no proof of it. The guy could claim he did it from scratch and get away with it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
1. Actually, with regards to digital data, it is "absurdly" easy to prove that the original creator of the model is "the original creator" and hence, the legal copyright owner.
2. 150 countries with different Laws is irrelevant; all those countries are probably signatories of the Berne Convention.
3. People post their licenses as that's the "smart" thing to do, assuming that they have any interest in protecting their IP rights. Otherwise they could just ascribe their work to the Public Domain and let others do as they want with the work(s).
4. Laws are created to regulate societies and social structures; without Laws we would not have a "civilization". Of course people break Laws, deliberately or inadvertently; that doesn't make Law breaking right and hence societies have penalties for breaking Laws. If you choose to break a Law as a member of any social society, country or organization, there will be negative consequences for your choice of action. If you don't like how this works, go live in the North or South Pole.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
1. Digital data such as 3d models are absurdly easy to rip off modify in order to remove any trace of signature by the original creator. We are talking about 3d models, not code. And even code can be stolen, it is quite easy to reverse engineer something and remove any trace from the original creator.
2. Berne convention lol, gl with that my dude. You are talking to an MBA with a mayor on international commerce, I know my stuff and unless you are a huge brand like McDonalds or Coca Cola then the Bern Convention won't really help you.
I remember even TGA Fridays failing a dispute about 10 years ago with a local restaurant using same name and similar logo. If they failed it's stupid to believe a freelance 3d modeler has any real chance to succeed.
3. People posting licenses realy do nothing, as anyone would say they did the model from scratch. Hence there was no "licence" involved.
4. "Laws are created to regulate societies" oh yeah and let me remind you that drug dealing and terrorism are ilegal. Nevertheless terrorist still exist and drug dealership is the second most profitable business in the world.
So yeah stuff can be ilegal, but thinking that will actually stop people from doing whatever they want is naive to say the least.
Activision Blizzard was smart and understood this fast, they knew that fighting 3d model rippers was a lost war an a silly waste of resources, even a huge company like Blizzard understood they just can't win. So they actually allow anyone to rip their models for free and use them, they did the right thing. Because now they get a ton of free marketing from their games 3d models.
That being said, when I see a dude adding a licence to his models im like. Ok you can do it, but gl enforcing that, it's you against the internet.
That's why I also make all my models public, I would rather earn with publicity than fighting a lost war against model rippers.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
1. "And even code can be stolen, it is quite easy to reverse engineer something and remove any trace from the original creator." <- is irrelevant when it comes to establishing actual ownership of IP
2. The Berne Convention is not irrelevant to this discussion if you actually understand how Copyright Laws work.
3. "Laws are created to regulate societies"; whether those Laws are enforced and how they are enforced is a large determinant in the quality of life enjoyed by societies. People are happier in societies that successfully implement and enforce their Laws.
Does this stop people from breaking Laws, no. So what? Without Laws and regulations in society, there is no common ground, no safety, no stability. You want to live in an anarchy, be my guest. I personally prefer to live in a well regulated society.
Activision Blizzard does not tolerate ripping of their models. Try to rip a model from Overwatch and upload it as a downloadable model for use in MMD and see what will happen.
"That being said, when I see a dude adding a licence to his models im like. Ok you can do it, but gl enforcing that, it's you against the internet." - fortunately for us, many people on the Internet seem to respect other people's IP rights; especially the "little guy's" IP rights.
"That's why I also make all my models public, I would rather earn with publicity than fighting a lost war against model rippers." - you are free to make your own choices. Personally, I am not against all model rippers and I am sure many large gaming companies are of the same mind. There are positive arguments for allowing model ripping. However, that does not mean that it is right morally or legally to rip off someone else's work and claim it as being your own.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sorry I know you were ignorant but not to that point. Even on this website there are TONS of people ripping models from games, a good example is this guy who has hundreds of ripped models on his profile.
He has been doing it for a LONG time and no, nobody will sue him lol. Second by your statement and the way you speak I am now 100% you don't know how to code even a simple website or an excel macros lol.
That being said "fortunately for us, many people on the Internet seem to respect other people's IP rights; especially the "little guy's" IP rights" yes there are many people who DON'T and there is nothing you can do about it boy.
Good luck trying to regulate the internet, you are alone in that. The internet is the single one thing that can't be regulated, it is a literall anarchy where only the strong survive. Even US government websites and big banks are taken down by hakers sometimes and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
Expecting everyone will follow laws is just naive. The internet is the internet also there is a popular VR game called VR Chat, they received millions of dollars in funding and guess what? That game is a TOTAL ripof of 3D models taken from this and other websites, just take a look at this website vrcmods.com/ and look at the HUGE amount of ripped models everyone uses and nobody gives a damn about copyright.
Or do a quick youtube search on VR Chat and see people using copyrighted models everywhere. Time to come out of the bubble kid, the internet is not what you thought it would be. Here there is only the law of the jungle.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I really feel sorry for you. You demonstrate a complete lack of a moral compass so it is pointless to pursue this discussion.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
No you demonstrate a complete lack of common sense. Like a kid who is too naive to wake up to reality, as if we all lived in some kind of utopian world where everyone follows the law.
That is autistic and childish.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Common sense and morality are separate issues. Don't mix the two up. I perfectly understand the points that you have made and they do reflect the "real world" behaviors as exhibited on many parts of the Internet.
However, that doesn't make those behaviors moral. My contention, and this is reflected in my writings, is that one stands up for moral behaviors. Then again we can have a healthy debate on what exactly constitutes "moral behavior", especially in the Age of the Internet. I fight for what I believe is right; you may disagree with my POV. That is absolutely your Freedom of Choice; I just happen to have an opposite view. That doesn't make either of us wrong nor stupid; we simply have opposing POVs.
But in your comments you have labeled me as being "naive", "ignorant", "autistic" and "childish" - all signs to me that I am dealing with a person with a closed mind, so like I said, it is pointless to continue this discussion simply because we have irreconcilable opposing POVs. Nothing wrong with that, we both live in a free world.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
You live in a bubble thinking the internet has any respect for "laws" or "morality". The internet doesn't care about that or your feelings or what you think is right or wrong kid. lol
The internet is the most anarchical place that exists, that's why you can find anything from child porn to ilegal weapons.
Yet you dare call someone else closed mind. Yeah no point on wasting my time with you anymore LMAO.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Insults aside, you do make some good points in your last post.
1. You are absolutely correct in your assertion that many people on the Internet, safely hiding their true identities behind a screen name, display an alarming disregard for common decency and the rights of others. So yes, in some parts of the Internet neither Laws nor morality hold sway.
2. "The internet is the most anarchical place that exists (sic)". Absolutely true; especially if you dive into the "Dark Web"; but often times, you don't even have to go so far. Just look at what happens in most forums, including the ones on this site.
3. I call you "closed minded"; not as an insult but a statement of fact. You don't seem to be able to see that each of our individual behaviors can make a change for the better; instead, based on what you have written thus far, you simply accept the Internet in it's current state as a "fait accompli". I do not see it as such, I see the Internet as a place where each of us can contribute "a little something" to help make the world a better place. The work I do in this gallery is a prime example of my efforts, and since the works in my gallery have had over 3 million views, and most of the comments I have received both publicly and privately have been positive, I humbly argue that I am doing a "good" thing. At the very least, I help other people, possibly hundreds of them.
So what have you done, other than steal other people's work?
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
I don't personally steal others people's work. In fact I usually credit people when I use their models, but that's me. I don't expect anyone to do the same. Hence I consider a waste of to time to even attempt to enforce any type of "license".
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I don't know if this page is still active. But I just need to confirm something, I'm making a poster for my library and I want to use MMD to do so. It is for education purposes only, so I won't be making money off of it, and the final print will not be reproduced further than one copy (for the library.). I just want to make sure of the legalizations first before I go through with this.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Honestly, I would just do it. Factually though, you have not given me enough information for me to give you a definitive answer. Just don't use Mickey Mouse or any other Disney character and you'll probably be OK.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I really believe that you should contact dA help desk and ask them to implement this into their policy. dA would have a better way to handle complaints of this nature and they would have the resource and knowledge. I don't do MMD myself, but I have been dragged into many wars over this because I have a friend that is into it. My knowledge of this is lacking, but when it comes to copyright laws I bleed the knowledge behind that law so I know it by heart. Copyright laws are broken every day and that is because people lack the knowledge to protect themselves when dealing with license and derivative works. The fine is pretty pricey and nobody wants a prison sentence.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Copyright Laws are incredibly complex so what I wrote here should only be regarded as guidelines and, not being a Law professional and I can't even guarantee that any of it is even correct from a strict legal standpoint.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You make a compelling argument. Although, this should be enough of a guideline for everyone to follow because the owners of the models do have there own terms and having policy to base it around would give the owners protection if someone does not follow their rules. This is something that should be available to everyone.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
So I started making this movie with ripped DOA, Fatal Frame, and Resident Evil models in it.
I don't want to make money off of anything and am using it to practice film making.
Am I okay to show this to other people if I don't make money and put a disclaimer and credit the original owners....
I'm just not sure because these models were not made for MMD they were ripped...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Do what your conscience tells you the right thing to do.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I emailed all the makers of the models and am waiting for their responses.
Thx for the informative post and responding to me so quickly XD ~~
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
One more question, what if we have original characters and designs for them and we create their clothes and whatnot from scratch, but the base models and (maybe) the hair is not ours. What class does that fall under?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What class does that fall under?
Answer: Not an original work.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
good thing. i'm actually safe since nothing i do is illegal and not doing something profit. because i don't monetize my videos or gain profit since it's pointless. i just put a disclaimer in the description if i'm using something like... copyright music that is protected by fair use, and i'm safe.
just follow the rules, use Notepad++ to translate some gibberish,don't rely on ripped models and not use Mikumikudance for profit.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
so what happends if i monitize a mmd video that has miku tda model? will my chanel get taken down will i get copyright?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"will my chanel get taken down will i get copyright?"
These are good questions!
With reference to YouTube only; you will either get a strike or copyright claimant notification that the material (music) belongs to someone else. Hope for the latter as after 3 strikes, your channel will get banned. In some instances the video may be taken down, blocked in some countries or blocked entirely.
In all cases, you won't earn anything from the claimed material even if your channel is monetized.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
so i only get a strike for using copyrighted music and stuff?
what if i use a ripped model or a tda model that is not made by me will i get copyright?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"what if i use a ripped model or a tda model that is not made by me will i get copyright?"
No one cares about these (unless you start selling them) so there shouldn't be any issues with using models made for MMD in MMD videos.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
so i can monitize videos with ripped models?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
NO. That would be a breach of copyright laws.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
what about monitizing a video with a tda model?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You cannot monetize a video that features a character that belongs to someone else!
So for example, Miku Hatsune belongs to Crypton Future Media, Inc. You cannot make any money in anyway with anything that features Miku unless you have a license to do so from Crypton. Furthermore, and a lot of people don't realize this, any time you use Miku or an image of her, under her TOS as published by Crypton, you need to credit Crypton.
Likewise IA belongs to The First Place Co., Ltd.; Gumi belongs to The Internet Co., Ltd.
However, if you make a video using a Tda model of your OC, you still cannot monetize that video because Tda's term of use for Tda Miku Append, and derivatives thereof, may only be used in NON COMMERCIAL works.
If you want to monetize your MMD work, legally, everything in those works have got to be your own original work or licensed works. End of story, no "ifs" and no "buts".
So for example, you can't use my stage models in your videos and monetize those either because my models are issued with a non-commercial use only clause, as is almost every other stage made for MMD. Likewise most MMEs also have non-commercial use only clauses.
My advice: Forget about monetizing MMD works; its not for making money, its for fun.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
true making mmd animations is fun inded
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Hnnngh... I praise you for this !
I encountered a class 5 but vice versa...
this person converted MMD models to XNA
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Anything goes on the Internet, right? 🤔
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well idiots are idiots... can't blame them
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Well what about using them for videos that include monetization? Does that fall under Fair use?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Woooooooow You certainly did a lot of research
Thank you for making this. This is really usefull for people who have troubles figuring out how the heck copyright laws work (like me). They are confusing sometimes.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Don't take what I wrote here as authoritative, just rough guidelines. Copyright Laws are really complex.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>