Primary tabs

Comments by User

Tuesday, March 19, 2013 - 14:50

Changed the title for you.  I like happy people.

Tuesday, March 19, 2013 - 14:35

I'm affraid the 80's have come and gone ;)

Tuesday, March 19, 2013 - 10:44

I would think 3 faces, 12 vertices would also work.

Friday, February 15, 2013 - 22:12

It's alive, muwahahaha!

Thursday, January 24, 2013 - 17:17

I too have taken steps to better clarify the situation (if possible).

I will grow it as needed.

Thursday, January 24, 2013 - 11:48

My personal take on it is there is no violation, so yes, though there was nothing to be resolved, just some confusion.  I have adheared to their terms of use and had exchanges with both sites (more to my intent and purpose, not these specific models, they are both aware I do CC work and what my output entails).


The community, however, seems to be disatsified with the legal speak that they have access to by either site.  I wish that conversation was happening somewhere else as not to cast doubt and fear here, but since it is here, let's resolve it.  Dialog has been taking place here:


I will yield to the communities decision.  I am more than happy to remove my models and bow out if that is what is decided.


Wednesday, January 23, 2013 - 17:59

While I don't think it's a bad notion, the complaint will then be that I am frabricating the permission.  Personally, I think plaintextures time is better spent producing textures to use and to be involved in the communities (such as they already are) than running about reviewing and approving models.  Now here's a question, how do you know what any models here or on Blendswap have used for textures?  How do you KNOW they are CC legal?  No one else dicloses where they source, could even be Google images.  I have a strong sense that some even use CGTextures (not posted here or I would report, but the users are very active here so I will not use their content since they have set precedence elsewhere), but since they disclose nothing they slink on by.  Why aren't we putting pressure on them to produce a manifest?


Don't get me wrong, I am grateful for being audited and having opportunity to fix any violation I may have made (which is exactly what happened to me years ago, and I learned and is why I choose to remain transparent now).  Knowing that I have spent more effort then many ensuring that I don't have my work recalled or in a position to have to rework.  It doesn't mean I don't make mistakes, but I have made a point of direct conversation with both sites and that is seemingly still not adequate for the community (or they don't believe me).  I suppose the easiest way to avoid the hassle and "legal risk" is just to stop making CC content all together or release untextured models.


What I am trying to beat at is plaintextures is here telling you this model is fine with its use terms and expectations.  The "legal" verbage is there for them to protect their content as it should be, they produce it for us to use but also to fund their sites and new content creation.  At the same time, I am sure they are no different then us in that they are not lawyers and do not have money lying about to hire one for a site they do to try to provide something to the community.  So, it's up to us as a group to work it out and grow meaning.


Regarding changing a pixel vs. adjusting hue, saturation, etc... the notion isn't much different from Deviant ART stock.  The idea is that you are allowed to use it in some meaningful process to produce something new.  ... as opposed to some unmeaningful adjustment to simply redistribute it.


I guess the community needs to talk to me, are we saying we want this content (and related content) removed?

Wednesday, January 23, 2013 - 08:15
Wednesday, January 23, 2013 - 08:15
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 - 14:48

@ plaintextures : =D  Again, thank you, I deeply appreciate your site and efforts there.


@ Julius : I have also had dialog with long before I used them in any model.  Reason being is about 3-4 years back I had to remove a dozen or so models due to this issue (textures were from a different site).  When in doubt I have dialog with the site admin/owners to confirm (typically even when not in doubt and I save the messages).  In a nutshell, goodtextures does want their textures to be used, they just don't want them to be "directly copied" and redistributed by default  (i.e. me download them and put them in my website or models w/o modification).  I do not just use the photo and dump UV's on it, the textures provided could not reproduce their content, to me that point has become a simple curtousey to any site willing to provide content for those of us wanting to do CC work.  They want to provide the source, but they don't want to get ripped off in the process, that is their protection.


P.S. In their FAQ:


May I use these textures in my Open Source (Creative Commons, GPL, etc) project?
Yes. These textures may be used in Open-Source projects. In that case, you are allowed to bundle them and distribute them as a package. Please add the following text to the documentation of the map:

"One or more textures on this map have been created with images from These images may not be redistributed by default. Please visit for more information."