I'm sure you all remember the Blender 3D Model Repository, run by Andrew Kator. You may even remember its fate and how a new repository took its place. The story didn't end there, unfortunately.
Andrew writes:
[...]Why I cannot continue with the BMR, is the massive legal problems I have encountered since June. These legal problems have been very time consuming, expensive, and extremely unpleasant.
We need $3000 to pay off legal fees from creating and hosting the Blender Model Repository for the first 13 months. When this donation goal is achieved, we will re-release all of our models under Creative Commons 3.0 with distribution and derivatives allowed. [all the models currently on their site are their own - Bart]
Each month there are over 25,000 downloads of our 217 3D models. Even your donation of one dollar will help greatly. If every visitor downloading models would donate a dollar, the donation goal would be achieved within several weeks.
I really, really, hate what happened to Andrew and Jennifer: they set up a repository to help out fellow Blender users and people uploaded copyrighted material it. As a result, somebody sued them and they're now in financial trouble because of it. I personally don't need to download Blender models, but I do appreciate their efforts so I decided to chip in a few bucks.
Having a good model repository would be a great boon for the Blender community though. What do you think would be the best way to set one up and stay out of this kind of legal trouble?
46 Comments
Sad to hear that people try to help, and get punished like this...
The only way I can think of to prevent anyone from uploading copy-righted material is by giving a link to the W.I.P.-thread in which the modeller says anyone is free to use the model... But still, that would only work for larger models.
Upload the models to a bittorrent-site such as piratebay. Not as a way of permitting the upload and download of restricted models but to avoid legal trouble if someone still would.
Why not have a link for a take-down procedure? Ala craigslist?
If the artist sues can't you suggest that the copyrighted material could have been removed if they followed procedures?
Of course, this is also subject to abuse, but it's a balancing act.
I paid my dues. I don't use the models either, but maybe i might in the future!
Well, there is copyrighted material and copyrighted material.
Uploading an X-wing should ring everybody's alarm bell. Even if you modeled it totally yourself you are stealing a very succesfull idea made by somebody else. That's probably the reason you are modeling that thing in the first place, it's far more easy to ride the cudo train on somebody else's idea then developing one yourself.
So even a (video) tutorial on creating it is not going to save you from lawsuits.
Stay away from lawsuit happy companies, like disney for example. So no "Cars", "Buzz" and "Mickey", although disney robbed all of our european fairy heritage they made damn sure it's now theirs by (US) law.
So,... what to do about it? Unless you are rich and can pay lawyers that know something about "fair use", better stay away from allowing uploading of that kind of material and stick to chairs and fantasy planes. Create a Repository of links to models. Get a board to check these links on a regular basis. "Cache" the data if you have to ( I wonder how Google expains there "caching" of other peoples news items... then again Google is rich and have lawyers that know something about "fair use" )
Thanks to BlenderNation for the heads up. I think the BMR was a very worthy effort and the models at KatorLegaz continue to be a great resource. It's a pity that the site was abused. I hope some people will head over and donate a bit to try to help them cover their costs.
If you do need a model, try to buy it.
Otherwise see if it's on google warehouse. But still you don't have a clue about the copyright on the model you've donwloaded
They could put legal disclaimer? Something like :
- you confirm you are the author of the model you deposited. KL reserves the right to remove any model deemed offensive of illegal without warning.
Plus, to deposit, you must be a logged member... leaving your mail although it will never be published (like here, in blendernation) should give a little sense of responsibility to each depositor. Anonymous deposition is the mother of all abuse...
They should also put a "report abuse" button for each object. This way each problem will be immediatly reported.
If they show to the potential plaintiff that they are eager to cooperate againstcopycat, they should have less trouble...
Ooooh something that would also help greatly (both KL and the depositors)... They should clearly indicate their policy.
Something like :
"No commercial object exported in .blend, no trademarked object whatsoever, no (type of object that lead to legal problem previously)" and so on...
Oooh. And I chipped 50 buckos. Don't be cheap people :)
Using a ToE that's agreeded upon membership creation that states "Kator Legalz will not be held responsible for the content hosted here, and copyright material uploaded by the registered member will be held responsible to the account holder for such deemed acts, as they are illegal and punishable by law.". It's a shame something happened like this and the uploader who put the content there to begin with should be ashamed of themselves.
I think the main reason KL was hit hard by this is because the content was hosted on their servers. Torrent and P2P applications get away with this because the actual content isn't hosted on any of the machines that they controll. This has been an ongoing battle since before Napster, and will take a long time to resolve.
There is however 1 fail-proof solution. Dont upload content that isn't yours. Before you decide to share something with the rest of the world, ensure you can slap a big, fat "Made by Me" sticker on it and that no one can remotely challenge it.
If there was a link on every submition saying something like report copy righted material then would people who found their material online still be able to sue?
Of course they would be able to sue, but if the user agreement stated that the user would be held responsible for copyrighted material uploaded from their account, the company hosting the content should be able to target the user and not have to take the hit for it. There has to be something that can hold water in court.
Although I'm not (yet) a truly active user of Blender, I've been following and supporting it's development since the early days. Good willing members of the blender-community should not fall victim to the willing or unwilling mistakes made by third parties in these. They deserve our support.
When a new repository is set up, one should incorporate safeguards to avoid legal issues. Be it by screening the content before publising in the repository or having the "uploader" take full responsibilty for the content.
I hope we reach the $3000 target soon. Considering the generous nature of the blender-community this should not be issue. I have done my part and just donated 50.
You can contact a site like TurboSquid.com to see what they have in place. They've been around for several years offering both free and for sale items. There's quite an extensive EULA in place.
http://www.turbosquid.com/OneOff/EULA.cfm
Best of luck to Andrew and Jennifer. I really sucks that the benevolent often get hit with the punishment, even though they did nothing wrong.
I belive GPL 3 would be better tham CC 3.
Cheers
agree with posts on bittorrent. My understanding is any denial of responsibility regarding content hosted on a server you operate is likely to be challenged. bittorrent seems like a good alternative, so it doesn'T take someone chasing up copyright infringements fulltime. also it is inherently up to date and segregative towards the better stuff, as people don't tend to keep things they don't like. It takes a commited community to make it a reliable 'repository' but is it not the case here?
Hey all you information freeloaders! If you want to play pirate, go get your own boat! Don't be such a coward and make others suffer for your irrationality!
I gave a tiny donation to "PAYPAL *KATOR LEGAZ" as a thank you for his work for aiding 3D design and the cause of freeware.
That being said, I am a copyleft-ist. In many ways I feel it's a sort of ransom or extortion we have to pay on Kator Legaz's behalf. I think this only shows the need for communities to make their own public domain characters. I'm unhappy with whatever studio sued Kator. I think that every person who puts "non-commercial" restrictions on their models is of the same mindset as those who sued Kator. Let's free up our culture, dudes.
Even though I never download models from the repository it's a great resource for those that do, and so I've contributed five bucks to try and help Andrew through this.
I don't mean to accuse the KatorLegaz folks of anything sinister and I realise donation is purely voluntary, but I would personally like to see more concrete info about this lawsuit and the legal fees involved before I would consider donating anything.
All I can find on the website is a simple statement "We need $3000 to pay off legal fees" which isn't very confidence inspiring. Is there a page with more detailed information?
I'm with Matt on this one. If anything, posting what the infringing files were or perhaps the IP they came from. is the best way to help the cause for the future. That means we'll be able to be on the lookout for those rogues, and perhaps punish them, e.g. banning from forums or whatever else to curtail that kind of behavior.
Of course it could have been a simple mistake too, somebody not knowledgeable.
Maybe I need to know more about the rights we have with sharing models. If I model a Nokia mobile phone and share it on my site, can Nokia sue me for infringing on their design copyright? Even when it's labeled Nokia in the file name and in the model itself?
Kind of discouraging! The yucca plant and Jack pine models are mine, btw: I was learning how to use dupliverts to make vegetation, and those models are low footprint, but still can handle a closeup.
I'm interested in getting involved with this, but I'd only be willing to work with a small crew that wants to do architecture and landscape. The Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation is much less likely to sue us than Disney.
Email me if you're interested; I have a complete empty website that I was planning to use for Blender anyway.
Maybe force uploaders to register contact information and go through a verification process. Disclaim that the ownership is on the uploaders, and all legal liability falls on them as well.. Not sure how difficult this would be to implement.. Might be worth consulting a lawyer about the issue and get their take on how to protect the host site.
A disclaimer upon registering for the site would help a lot in passing the burden of the legality of uploaded works to the member, which is how it should be.
Even when buying a model you can't always be assured your buying from the person who has the rights to sell it.
Just some added paranoia,
Pam
Quote: What do you think would be the best way to set one up and stay out of this kind of legal trouble?
Maybe if you make the person put in some personal information, like their e-mail address or address or real name, and then put some sort of contract in action.
Maybe make it say something like:
"All material is the supposed ownership of the person(s) who put it on this site (BMR). Any court or legal action taken against BMR will be the responsibility of the person(s) who uploaded it. Any legal fees or fines charged to BMR because a person(s) uploaded illegal or copyrighted material will be automaticly forwarded to the person who uploaded the illegal or copyrighted material.
BMR is not responsible for anyone who uploads illegal or copyrighted material. It is the responsibility of the person(s) who uploaded the material."
Oh, and don't forget to add everythign else, like how if anyone put's pornography on the site that it's the uploaders fault, and everythign else.
Just spell it out in complete, absolute detail. And do not leave anything vauge in the contract , but make it so simple that no one can get around it.
I'm not an expert, but I have read some contract and licence aggrements, and that's what they say.
maybe the community could set up a voting system and models can get voted in or out depending on copyright issues or whatever. I think if anything, each uploaded model should be scanned or looked over for copyrighted stuff. these repositories are good learning items and need to be continued.
-Dan
My sympathy for the problems. I'd like to hear a bit more details as well, if possible.
Was there a copyright ownership directive and disclaimer on BMR? Was there a report abuse link? Was this tried or did they just get sued without warning? Did they believe they were within their rights?
I realize the legalities may be once again a problem with that, even. Not talking about cases before the court, or settlement agreements, etc.
------------
I suspect for individuals, only offering your own work on your own site is the safest route unfortunately.
Putting a "report abuse" link for take-down, and placing "full responsibility" for copyright on the uploaders is next-most-likely-to-be-safest-route for a library, including demanding an "I own this" statement.
Actually trying to *verify* the information provided, and getting personal information, etc may be more of a problem than not doing so, because they could get in trouble if they don't it *thoroughly* enough, as in "due diligence".
Sometimes you can get away with "but he said it was his" and sometimes you can't.
Oh, and the GPL is fine for CODE, but the CC license is designed for artistic works and has different, more finely tunable rights. And GPL3 still isn't done yet anyway.
Thanks to everyone who has donated. Once the donation goal is met, we will release our models as Creative Commons.
For those that have asked for details, I cannot give exact information for legal reasons. Until everything is paid, the matter is still considered unresolved.
Two commercial models were converted to Blender and uploaded. We had no way to track down who uploaded them since the IP addresses lead to WiFi hotspots. One model author was content for us to simply remove the offending material. The second demanded a fee for each time the model was downloaded from our site. I traded graphic design services to our lawyer for some of his legal fees, we paid what cash we had, and there are monthly payments. $3000 is what will be remaining as of January, 2008 after our payments.
Incorporate a rating ballot! Threadless T-shirts, OKCupid, and others use this method to cover their asses. before a model gets up on the internet, it would have to get the OK from other users and a mod.
On a separate part of the site entirely, this process becomes a game of sorts, working like a slide show. Just an image and short description under the image appear, and then buttons to the right of it. Here are some buttons I thought up...
Step 1: From the image and description, this model...
( ) Looks like something copyrighted.]
( ) Looks to be completely original work.]
( ) I can't tell
Step 2: (nine different "submit" buttons)
[I like it & keep going] - [Approve & stop rating]
[Neutral & keep going] - [Neutral & stop rating]
[No good & keep going] - [No good & stop rating]
[I can't tell & keep going] - [I can't tell & stop rating]
You can flag this model for missing an image, or missing information about its origins, or not being classified correctly. (for example: inappropriate material) Flagging opens in a new window or tab.
[Flag this model]
Once a model gets at least one OK, it could get passed to be approved by a mod, and then put on the list. It prevents all sorts of mess, and is relatively fun to flip through for the users helping you out.
Quote: "For those that have asked for details, I cannot give exact information for legal reasons. Until everything is paid, the matter is still considered unresolved."
Legal reasons? I don't understand what you're saying. You seriously mean that you are not permitted by law to disclose the exact details of why you owe $3,000 in fines while the community is pitching in money to help your cause? Anyone can put up a donation box that says "Help Me" and people do it on the streets every day. Napster was sued for distributing copies of copyrighted Metalica songs and it was all over the media, but you're unable to give any exact information as to where a community's worth of money is being donated to? I think it sucks that you owe $3000, but from what I understand about law, I don't think there's anything that would withhold you from publicly announcing the situation. It's not like someone was murdered here. I could stand corrected however, because I'm not any sort of law student, but it does sound like a fish tale to me. Best of luck.
Hello everyone...
So, what is the verdict? I'd be happy to host Blender models and tutorials.
I've discovered quite a few gotchas that would discourage even an advanced artist.
Example: how to constrain axes so that Blender works like a drafting board, and not a ball of clay. This should be explained at the soonest possible moment as it allows technical types to gain control of the program early.
And then...models...good ones and bad ones. Bad ones are usually the result of pushing one tool too hard, because you don't know that other better ones, exist. Example: Mirror Modifiers. Thank you Mr. Bomb.
So, I'll make my offer again. http://www.geekopolis.ca has about 900 Meg free. I'm very interested in working out the nasty legal details, as my firm has a full-time legal counsel.
Zinc Chameleon out!
Hmm - In case you haven't read googles license agreements and terms of use policies published by them and other big companies that are well known - perhaps if another repository were to be created, you not only force the end user to agree to a disclaimer on contract and permissiblilty of use but also add in the line that says that the end user must agree to hold the company/organisation indemnifiable in court and MUST take the blame for any copyrighted work that they upload themselves if called upon to do so - that way, as long as enough contact details are tracked upon membership and kept recorded, the offending person(s) can be traced and forced to pay for any trouble they have caused. Also, if enough oppurtunities are provided to report suspisious items and the user is warned EACH TIME they upload anything and forced to repeatedly accept any terms of use, then financial trouble (at least) SHOULD be avoidable on the part of the organisation or induviduals holding or hosting the actual offending material. That's just my view, although I'm no lawyer - but the main thing is that ENOUGH contact details are kept to pursue the offenders on the basis of legal action - otherwise, who can tell, it might have even been in the original creators intentions to deliberately spoof a site and get it into trouble just so that they can reduce competition!! Still - where's a lawyer when you need one, I'm sure there was one around on the blenderartists forums who does software law but I can't remember who...??...
-epat. :)
@Zinc Chameleon:
Sounds like a good idea - but first, lets try and clear up the previous mess - then we can start to think about trying again or trying new methods. Still, I think that if you want to do that sort of thing, you'll pretty much have to just get on and do it - although maybe if you ask around in suitable places, you might be able to find some budding web designer you'd be able to give you a helping hand. Maybe try on the blenderartists forums:
http://www.blenderartists.org
- still, don't give up on here yet - I'm sure the right people will come along; but this post hasn't been up for a very long time yet!!
-epat.
Oddly enough, the site went down right after I uploaded my Stargate model.
Of course, I doubt that it was anyone in the community; probably an outside source wanting money. Most Blender users (and users of open source in general) are fairly tolerant.
So far, no one has requested public recognition for donating. We want to give acknowledgement, since people are helping us.
Of course, we respect the right of privacy... but we hope that anyone who has donated will reconsider their position and will contact us using the link to request recognition.
@Andrew,
Well, best of luck to you. I hope Bart's attention to the matter helps with your financial pickle that someone's gotten you into. It's a shame it took almost a year to get some nice recognition on the situation. I am kind of curious though, you mentioned that all the models from the old repository will be put back into the new one once the $3000 have been raised and paid off from the fines. Why would you want to put the old models back into the new repository when you can't verify the originality of them to begin with? I hope you don't resolve one lawsuit to find yourself in another.
It's also a shame that you're not from the US (or at least I assume you're not). Here's something you should look at if you haven't already: DMCA 512 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OCILLA).
I paid my dues ($4) and I think it's scandalous that so many people download stuff from that repository and not even give $1.
I am agree with the others comments authors.
Such a site repository needs a Terms of Use and a "limited liability" legal disclaimer were users state they own the whole responsibility for the submitted content copyright.
Of course, there should be a "abuse report" button.
And, of course, all users should register themself: real name, real surname, email, address, country, nick, password and image test code.
Moreover, users should chose a suitable license for the contents they submit, like Creative Commons licenses. If the content were not compatible, for any reason, with this license, it should not be submitted.
In fact if there still someone that will continue this repository full running....I think BitTorrent is very useful idea...I think there's still needing copyright control, but bittorrent will save a little bit from little missunderstandings in that dirty copyright thing...I DON"t OFFER PIRAting - NOT - I think it must be tracker filled with clean downloads, that has copyright information description, but In fact copyright thing is so dirty, that gives everyone a chance to bring a lawsuit against you...so I don't believe that someone will not appear who will not like a fact that in repository ( normal server) exists DVD cases, Mac computers images or something like that,,,,the problem is that in copyright law there is nothing clear...that law (i don't know how exatly it's in us and in rest of the world, but in Lithuania we have very unclear copyright laws) leaves just a cause someone to put you under lawsuits.........so a bittorrent tracker will be a i think a good problems solving....
And at least don't you think that that repository is sharing and not a commercial thing...so bittorrent will be good place for free licenzed works...and good avoiding from "IF ....then what..?"
Andrew stated,
"I am simply following what I have been told by my lawyer. As I understand it, the terms of the agreement leave options for the model author to pursue other legal action should we cause "other problems." If the offending model reappears on the web, the model author can find the person responsible and pursue legal action against him. My disclosure of details, including the model in question, would violate the agreement by supposedly preventing the model author from pursuing future legal actions."
It sounds to me as if this model author in question hopes (or knows) the violating model will reappear on another site in order to seek legal action with the pupose of making money out of this. Since the model was uploaded from a wifi-point and the identity of the uploader cannot be determined, who is to say that it wasn't this model author who uploaded the model in the first place?
Andrew might consult his legal advisors to check if it would violate the agreement if the identity of this so-called model author was disclosed. This information is probably within the public domain as it is a matter of public record?
If future (or even passed) legal actions by this or these persons come to light it might indicate that we are dealing with some sort of scam.
Kardargo makes a great point, but the "prove your innnocence" argument fails in this case. I assume Kator was charged with distributing copyrighted material without consent. So yes, the holder could have uploaded the model under a false or made-up user name, and then turned around and sued. And Kator has no defense because he cannot prove the uploader was the copyright holder. Oh, and everyone, even with all the legalese forms, assuming they are signed in blue ink and notarized, you are still sued even if it is the first step of discovery, you are still a party to the lawsuit. And getting some 19-year-old to hold you harmless and indemnify and pay your lawyer bill - good luck.
Kator: This would make a really intersting novel or short story or something...maybe you can document and sell your experience with this matter.
The problem with bittorrent is the same as with tutorial links - the original sites fade away and die unexpectedly and frequently. After a few years, the BMR would be half-way bad links, and people would stop even trying.
All of this means that there will be an enormous overhead in running the respository. For example, indemnification iinsurance to hold a reveiwerr harmless if they fail to spot a copyrighted infraction - i mean, who would volunteer for that job description: "Look at a model and determine if it conflicts with any other copyrighted concept in any other nation in the world over the last 50 years. If you are right, you might make $1 for every download. If you miss one, you will be sued for a million dollars." OMG. Our current litigation mindset is killing entrepreneurship.
However safe u try to play but even if u everything legal and a suit is field against u, u will need to fight it out in court. So, u need money. I really feel for Andrew Kator. I would had donated if I had a job. The author in question is certainly not polite and the person who just converted it into blender and uploaded it could have been a teenager or the author in question too. What do u think? A nice way of extracting money.
Hi Andrew! I hate what's happened here.
Could that person simply ask you to remove his work? Why sue you that way?
I really don't understand him.
I've just given my little contribute by paypal, best wishes!
Tiziana
@Roger,
About Bittorrent sites dying away, there is the counter example of dimeadozen.org, a tracker for bootleg recordings. It is in quite good shape, and you can check torrent availability. I think they have a way of removing bittorrent links for which there is no seeder for a certain time. Adding a forum onto this you would be able to sustain a community more easily.
Their policy system is interesting because they are even more subject to lawsuits than a blender model repository would be. They have a list of artists that have asked no bootleg records of their work be made available and a couple of people to watch after that.
All of our 3D models are now Creative Commons, and related web pages have been updated to reflect the new licensing. Special thanks to all who donated to cover legal expenses from when we hosted the BMR.