[Radthorne]

One analogy for the 3D art that I've heard is to liken it to photography. If someone makes "art" photographs, say with a (human) model in a fancy dress and holding a sword, the photographer still owns the copyright to the resulting photograph, even though he didn't make the model's clothes or the sword (or the model!). Generally, unless the human model is well known, even her name remains unknown to anyone viewing the photograph. The photographer probably paid her a modeling fee and obtained a release form, which is analogous to the fee paid for a 3D model and the "readme" file that comes with it outlining its terms of use.

Some artists really embrace the 3D realm, considering it just another tool with which to express themselves. For the non-artist who is comfortable with the technology, it can really unleash creativity, since it removes the learning curve for other media like paint or pencil; it makes dealing with (and learning about) perspective on a 2D surface much easier, since you can move "real" objects around in real time; and it makes experimentation much easier. ("Don't like that pose? OK, how about I move this hand behind the back, and tighten the grip on the sceptre, and oh let's make it green instead of blue...") And all done with just a few mouse clicks.

[Radthorne]

I've created a few new images; rather than post them all here, I've attached some thumbnails. If they look intriguing, you can pop over to my site (http://www.kevinradthorne.com) under the Artwork button, and see them at a larger size.

http://www.sff.net/people/radthorne/Rogue White 2 Thumb.jpghttp://www.sff.net/people/radthorne/Winterfrost Thumb.jpghttp://www.sff.net/people/radthorne/Enchantress Thumb.jpg

[alison]

You've been busy, haven't you? There's a lot of good images there. KatG, aren't the copyright issues rather similar to the ones raised by sampling? Perhaps less pressing, since Kevin knows the terms of use, and doesn't seem to be infringing any moral rights (do you have moral rights in the US? I have a feeling you don't...)

[Radthorne]

You've been busy, haven't you? There's a lot of good images there. KatG, aren't the copyright issues rather similar to the ones raised by sampling? Perhaps less pressing, since Kevin knows the terms of use, and doesn't seem to be infringing any moral rights (do you have moral rights in the US? I have a feeling you don't...)
No, there are no moral rights here; only moral righteousness, which is not the same thing at all... And the powers that be here are going to make darn good and sure that all the rest of you have the same righteousness too! (What's another war between friends?) :rolleyes:

Anyway... I don't think this is related to sampling, which is generally taking portions of somebody else's music and incorporating it into something new. In that case, the original music was not intended to be "sampled", so unless the original artist gave permission to do it, I would think that he or she might take exception to its use in a new work (as might the music publisher, should one be involved).

In the case of these 3D models, the creators are creating them with the intention that they be used by others in works of art; that's their whole reason for making them. The model files themselves have no artistic "function" unless they are rendered into something. Now, if I create a new model myself, unless I post the model file itself somewhere on the web, nobody can use it anyway. If I do post the model, as with anything else you put up there my protections are only as good as the copyright laws allow (which is to say, somewhat reasonable here in the U.S., perhaps a little lax in some other countries). If I sell it, generally the terms of use from most of the major sites that host people selling models (Renderosity, Poser Pros, 3D Commune, to name a few), stipulate that purchase of the models permits their use in any rendered artwork, but that you cannot sell or redistribute the 3D model file itself (generally known as a "mesh" in 3D lingo).

One of the things I'm going to do in a couple of days is post a few pictures showing the process I use to put these images together, since people might find it interesting. I'll show the various model bits and how I alter and combine them together to come up with an image.

Oh - and thank you! I'm glad that you like the images I've already done!

[KatG]

I think it's seen as artists making tools for other artists, which are paid for -- the paint analogy, because the models are essentially software programs. But there is a real piracy issue as well, since unscrupulous people can redistribute or sell models that are not their own illegally, just like software programs. And more traditional artists may get their images on the web and have those downloaded, stolen and turned into models. And there may be some point, if artists are making a lot of money on a poster or something, where the model suppliers are going to demand some extra money. It's the kind of thing that has to work itself out on the web and hopefully will stabilize into standard practices. The graphic arts community has been using the web longer than anyone, so they'll probably work it out pretty fairly and on a global basis.

[Rocket Sheep]

Actually Kevin... I think it is time to put Kevin Radthorne at the top in huge embossed letters... like ya bloody mean it... and then put the title down the bottom in smaller letters, plain coloured covers with stylised emblems, seedy photos or artist renditions... just like the professionals do it. :D

[Radthorne]

Actually Kevin... I think it is time to put Kevin Radthorne at the top in huge embossed letters... like ya bloody mean it... and then put the title down the bottom in smaller letters, plain coloured covers with stylised emblems, seedy photos or artist renditions... just like the professionals do it. :D
OK!
http://www.sff.net/people/radthorne/graphics/Poolside.jpg

[KatG]

Okay, now you're starting to get a little juvenile on us. :) And enough giant moons in the background!

But this really does show the possible range, doesn't it? I've recently noticed that the cover art for sf/f books has gotten a lot more varied in terms of design. There's a lot of mainstreaming -- text in bright colors, no artwork, minimal graphics -- going on; a lot of chick lit styles -- drawn figurines, minimal artwork, pastels and neon pastels; some surreal, moody, noir stuff -- blurred photos, shadow figures; mystery style -- props like script fragments, candlesticks, clocks mushed artistically together with odd lighting; and still a lot of the traditional sf/f art but in a variety of styles, sizes, positioning, color choice. It's good, I think, but publishers could go much further and really run with genre fans' comfortableness with cover art to try a lot of new stuff. And they can go retro too, with the buxom beauties in bikinis with the dragons, but give it that anime style or some other fillip.

[Rocket Sheep]

Hmmm... by "seedy" I actually meant blurred or grainy photos of run down streets, building, shipyards etc... things with a dystopic feel... but each to his own type of "seedy" eh, Kevin...

Doesn't Crighton put his name in embossed capitals tho?

[Radthorne]

Okay, now you're starting to get a little juvenile on us. :) And enough giant moons in the background!

Hmmm... by "seedy" I actually meant blurred or grainy photos of run down streets, building, shipyards etc... things with a dystopic feel... but each to his own type of "seedy" eh, Kevin...
Hey, I was just trying to fulfill a request here! So I equated "seedy" with "trashy"... :rolleyes: Sigh....

All right, "seedy": run down streets, buildings... Let's try this then...

http://www.sff.net/people/radthorne/graphics/Dying Dreams.jpg