IP law is a piece of garbage, if you want to be safe (from the trash companies whose sole purpose on earth is to send emails asking money for a crappy picture no one will ever buy) use models made by you, from scratch, use images made by you, from scratch. Even pictures taken with your own camera are at risk.
If you really really want to use something found on the net, always ask for the permission of the owner, specifically mentioning the commercial purpose. If he says anything other than “yes you can”, it’s a no. Even if it looks like a “yes”.
That textures.com? It’s a no.
Hi! Yeah… I see it. My last models are self-made. I capture textures with my camera around my house - don’t see any reason for other people to complain:D
Ah, that’s the mistake of a person thinking ip law is a product of reason! Who’s the owner of the object your reproducing with your camera, I say! Soul stealer!
Seriously though, where I live, if you take a picture of a grass field, the owner of the field can sue you for violation of his intellectual property. And that’s not even the most absurd thing that can happen.
OK! My mother will sue me for violation to her property… Sounds belivable. Althought the actual creator and owner of the grass field is God. Would he really judge me for taking a photo? I doubt…
Basically, you are doing a derivative work.
Also taking photos in public spaces is OK. Problems arise with distribution & commercial use of that specific image. Though i doubt owner of a grass field could ever recognize an image without some distinguished marks. Even so, how was owner of the field in any way impaired… Take for example paparazzi. Nobody is prohibited from taking a photo.
Reffering to this all, every modeller is doing derivative work, except when painting/generating the textures theirselves and modelling/sculpting without any scans or background references. So, basicly, it is rare seen that people makes non-derivative work… P.S. Am I not a particular owner of my declared living place?
Because of laws and penalties like this https://www.lib.purdue.edu/uco/CopyrightBasics/penalties.html
Just a thought.
<edit>
Those two area’s that I marked stick out to me, I know one of them is an image plane being viewed with a perspective. And I know mother nature is somewhat fond of using the same general shapes over and over again. But this is the type of thing that makes me wonder if I would have to contend with the above linked penalty if I should happen to use said product.
Perhaps a side by side of both source images could make everyone feel better.
I must replace those. When it was CG Textures, I read it’s laws and it allowed me to use their textures for ANY purpose if they were used in models, documents etc. However, now site has changed and so does it’s laws. I’ve changed the texture there a bit, though…
If you have a copy of your copyright agreement from when you first downloaded it, you will be on far better ground.
But personally, and this is just my opinion and we all know what those are worth. But. I care less about the source of one texture and I care more for my ability to trust the person who provided it. Is it a picture from your mothers lawn, did you download it from some site that got sold? I don’t know.
But here is what I am thinking the first time I see a story change “Can I trust this person? Shit will they get my ass sued if I use their product?”
If its a texture from your mothers lawn and someone raises the question, Slap a watermark on your original, down res it slightly and do a side by side to clear your name. If you got it from some site or another just out and out say it and offer up said documentation if need be.
When dealing with multi million dollar assets, the ability to be trusted and your ethical behavior matters as much as your professional skillset.
How to do it?