I have the Longsword fighter from Halo in a 3D model format; I'm no good with Blender or any other 3D app, but is there any way the Longsword could be revised to get around trademark/copyright infringement (if there is any) and added to the game, or at least be added potential?

I have the Pillar of Autumn as well...intricately detailed, just no surface mapping on either. The PoA would be an awesome capship!!

/me signs TGFT up for a PoA cappie.

Please, whoever posts next ; Try to Be Nice

(I can do this much with Blender anyhow...and people can be mean if they want, it doesn't hurt my feelings. It's not like some people can help being arrogant and mean-spirited...I understand and sympathize. :)

Oh, and I figured I should throw this in: these are models pulled right out of the PC version of Halo: Combat Evolved. I didn't create these, I didn't download them as copies off of some crap site; a PC-enslaved friend of mine pulled them right out of the game and they've been on my computer/external drives ever since. They are designed from multiple objects, with (the PoA) over 13,000 vertices. Basically these are very detailed models that could be used in some fashion or another within the game, barring the aforementioned legal difficulties.

~Urim

All I can say is that you've managed more with Blender then I could. Fraking program is not user friendly.

Nice thought, but the copyright thing is pretty much a showstopper.

Indeed.

Even if you could get 'around' copy right, it would still be way too much time for the devs to put the model ingame.

And they wouldn't, even if they could, because that would be wrong.

zamzx zik: I'd almost guarantee that the devs could use an .obj more simply than you think.

I'm thinking about ways to take the PoA and edit it substantially for use as a capship. At least it would be something the devs could play with.

I can honestly tell you that the devs cannot use these files. Thank you, but they simply cannot.

Copyright infringement. You cannot use any part of an original model and "modify" it and call it "original". The model in it's entirety, including it's individual parts, are copyrighted.

Then what in the world do they use? Models are models are models, be they 3DS, Wings3D, Blender, Maya, or whatever.

Try googling "derivative work" sometime.

The artists that have worked for Guild have used 3DS.

Copyrights don't apply to items that have been changed at least 30% from the original.

And I can almost guarantee with complete certainty that 3DS Max could import a Wavefront .obj file without a hitch.

Copyrights don't apply to items that have been changed at least 30% from the original.



The blustering ignorance of the laity never ceases to amaze.

Disagreeing statements have no weight without supporting material, Lecter.

And what weight, pray tell, does your unsupported legal opinion--offered by a non-lawyer--have?

Don't feel too bad--what you said was funny. But it's wrong.

I think you may be mistaking the copyright law as it applies to personal consumption. I think, at least in Canada, you're legally entitled to reproduce work (newspaper, novel) as long as you stay under a certain percentage (although I believe it varies depending on the context), and it's only for you to use. You definately are not allowed to reproduce any amount and then turn around, claim it as your own, and profit. It's called plagiarism.

And Lecter are you developing a stutter?

However, publishing companies in the US have for years taken a popular version of the Bible (the NIV, say) and changing it just enough so they can copyright it as their own work. There is a percentage of difference associated with this practice, and in my recollection it was 30%. Of course that's all about profit anyway; they don't give a rip about the Bible, just the Almighty Dollar.

Without taking the time to explain U.S. copyright law to you, MC, what you're referring to is an instance of "thin copyright"--which only comes into play when the bulk of the work (the underlying text of the Bible, or the facts in the phone directory) is not protected by copyright. And, even then, while the % changed is relevant--there's no hard and fast rule as to what works and what doesn't.

Either way, it's irrelevant to whether you can make derivative works based on the original expression embodied in the designs you've copied here. Not that you could be bothered to read the text of the publicly available copyright statute and figure it our for yourself.