Sorry, I\'ve been away for the weekend.
I don\'t think I should post to this thread anymore. I still might, though. My arguments are being grossly misrepresented, and it\'s starting to feel like I\'m being twisted apart between two cars. I\'m tired of talking in circles.
Besides that, it seems as though this thread is tapering to a close anyway.
Somewhat unhelpfully, you failed to paste in this quote just below it:
\"For other kinds of works, we recommend you consider the licenses proposed by Creative Commons.\" The artistic content mentioned here is neither software nor documentation. Therefore I can only assume you simply didn\'t read down this far. The GPL is not an appropriate license for non-code works and even the GPL group itself acknowledges this. To the extent this debate continues, you yourself are disagreeing with the entity you hold in highest reverence.
Actually, I don\'t hold them in the highest reverence, as I differ from them on the topic of GPL versus public domain. However, here\'s a more concise quote from earlier:
\"So the ethical issues of free software, the issues of a user\'s right to copy and modify software, are the same as such questions for other kinds of published information.\"
You just done because actually what you said is totally false. It\'s not just designing a character, after you must model it, animate it, you must play on light, special effect, and much more...
No computer work is not minimal, and yes you\'re too affirmative.
I don\'t understand how you can say something without even checking if you right, and you\'re not.
...
You could admit you\'re wrong on that hmmm?
I admit one thing: I could be misunderstood if you don\'t read everything I say. I said that the computer work is minimal, and that\'s exactly what I meant. I am surprised by how streamlined and efficient the work is. It costs about $600 per hour per person to make this stuff (well, for movies), so by planning everything that\'s done beforehand, buying the most efficient software, and not having to worry about CPU usage, the work is brought down to it\'s minimum possible...hence \"minimal\".
Here\'s something I said that may have confused you:
\"I don\'t think that\'s the program, but the point is still the same. :-? what really surprised me is how little work is really involved in creating the characters in those new Pixar-ish movies. I mean, just make a model, let it know what are eyes, corners of the mouth, etc., and it can automate speaking, facial expressions, and even movements recorded from a human model...\"
I don\'t mean that it\'s little work. I mean that it\'s much less than it seems. I would have otherwise thought the rendering of trillions of polygons to be difficult work. I thought it was pretty clear that this statement was unrelated to the whole thread, since it\'s just related to my personal amazement at the software that\'s available. Taken out of context, it can look like a contradiction.
In fact, I have stressed before the enormous work involved. I don\'t dispute that:
\"RE:\"Where did you get the idea that ... just a \'few\' clicks are necessary even using that software?\"
RE:\"and they are all but click-and-play tools that automagically produce models derived from a base set.\"
you see the confusion? I\'m saying the same thing.\"
\"now I\'m not saying that the movie makers are being overpaid. the whole movie production is immense.\"
\"No, I don\'t underestimate. In fact, if you read back, I talked about how much work is put into it. But that only reinforces my point that it doesn\'t make sense for everyone to keep reinventing the wheel.\"
Noononononono I didn\'t agree to Kluger that making characters for movies is easy.
It\'s nightmare hard!!!
Well, it\'s a good thing you didn\'t agree with me on that, because I never said that.
Edit: And btw. Kluger, have you even tryed computer graphics?
Ah good, an original question. I have sold various CG software, set it up, and oriented users with it. Back in the early \'90s, I wrote some DOS-based 3D rendering software, and I made things like floating AMD logos and simple objects (all by manually entering each coordinate and texture by hand in a text file!), but no, I practically have no right brain. :-? I can make technical drawings, and Xfig has become a good friend, since I\'m renovating my home, and I can go so far as to make beautiful screen savers and fractals, but that\'s all left-brain stuff. I tried drawing a monitor lizard for my newsletter (called, \"The Computer Monitor\"), and after fumbling with the mouse as if I was drawing with a pencil attached to the back of my head, I ended up with a monitor lizard that looked almost recognizable...except that it was clearly missing a leg! I made some Quake levels (oh man that software\'s confusing!), and I wanted to make a Barneystein Quake, but I quickly gave up. (You know how all the models in the original Quake look like someone had severely beaten them with a hammer? Mine looked like the scribble that little kids draw before they spontaneously learn to draw recognizable pictures.)
Well, if everyone\'s stuck in an infinite loop, I\'ll just tip myself out the door. My point, which was forgotten and misunderstood, is that imposing restrictions with copyrights is wrong and that I recommend gradually shifting the Planeshift license for graphics over to GPL or even public domain, all the while making sure not to disenfranchise the artists or make anyone unhappy. The way I see it, you\'re losing one enthusiastic and probably capable artist in Sekhmet by requiring the rights to everything submitted. I doubt that you\'re gaining any significant amount of art by requiring rights as opposed to what you would have gotten with artists interested in releasing their art to the public domain. Of course, making everything in-house is a separate concept, and if you feel that that would be best for your game, then so be it. Whether it\'s right for the art to be held proprietary we are in disagreement. I\'m very interested in the area of what\'s erroneously labelled \"intellectual property\", but we\'re not getting anywhere and that\'s not what Sekhmet was interested in finding out. It seems that Sekhmet has found out what he needs to know (though I hope that in the future Planeshift changes its policy.)
(If you\'re wondering what the edit was, I saw that I was missing a comma.
)
