oreo Posted August 17, 2002 Author Share Posted August 17, 2002 while i was thinking about this some interesting thought came up... i assume most modelers here start with primitives when modeling, and then u start manipulating verts, edges, polys etc to craft ur model out, so basically every model would start with a basic type of primitive shape that look more or less the same, can u say then that the models' 'underlying construction' (as oddjob like to put it)r all the same and therefore stolen? if for eg someone downlaoded a simple file that included a basic primitive built shape, and out of it he modeled something that looks completely different and released it to the public, then have that person stolen the model just cuz the 'underlying construction' was not his own? even tho given the fact that the outcome was a completely original prodcut? now lets assume that i 'stole'(as oddjob like to assume) the model from that guy and used it as a 'primitive' built base model, and then modified it to be a competely different and ORIGINAL model structure, i dont see how that would be stealing EVEN IF thats wut i did... infact alot of things in everyday life works that way... heres a comparison pic that I HAVE... instead of looking at oddjob's obvious biased views, i really dont see how this model cant be an original item given the amount of difference and the OUTCOME of it... http://oreo8.netfirms.com/compare.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frumpus Posted August 17, 2002 Share Posted August 17, 2002 Originally posted by oreo . .. and also i already answered y im contacting the author its so i can shut him up, if contacting him and officially giving credit to that guy as my 'base model referece' can shut him up then so be it, i just need to get this done with so i can work on my other 2 matrix models I don't understand: Originally posted by oreo . "i decided to start something fresh and i bring u Trinity! OMG! she was WAY easier to model than Neo for some reason, prolly cuz i didnt include trenchcoat. Note this is my VERY FIRST model EVER," "cool i think ive seen that b4... but i dont think my model looks like it at all... maybe they look a bit alike (afterall she IS trinity)but i think mines way more detailed and accurate... once i release the model then ull see..." "r u accusing me of stealing models!!! WTF!!!!!! u know theres also like a few diff anakins out there r u saying then they stole each other's models !!! dont accuse ppl u idiot!!!!!!!" I didn't realize this "plagiarism issue" when I posted my constructive criticism earlier in the thread. I recall you offering your "thanks" for my perspective, oreo. It boils down to this: Either: 1. you created the model from scratch (as you originally claimed), and are being unjustly lambasted for plagiarism, yet now want to offer credit to an author of a completely different model - just so that a vocal "thorn in your side" will be silenced. 2. you used somebody else's model as a "base", then tweaked, and pulled and added the verts to come up with something altered (and you deliberately intended to deceive the community). If #1 is true, Oreo, I encourage you NOT to "cave" on your position just to "shut somebody up". That would be lame to "people-please" in this manner, plus you'd appear guilty AND too prideful to admit your faults. If you really DID create this model from scratch, then stick to your guns, man. If #2 is true, on the other hand, and you STILL won't just lay down your pride enough to admit you lied from the beginning, I have lost all respect for you. I'm a NEWBIE modeller, and the evidence is even plain to me: . . . it seems to prove beyond reasonable doubt that #2 is true: Even though you purported in the beginning to create this model from scratch, and vehemently denied that you used a "base model", now you are changing your story to "save face" in the midst of strong confrontation and weasel out of a straight out admission of guilt. If true, this would show that: you do not see stealing as morally wrong, you do not feel bad about lying to the community, you really do not respect the community enough to sincerely apologize. you are as yet unrepentant. I thought about just keeping my mouth shut and letting things happen - without my interferrence. I realized that would be the same as seeing someone shoplifting and not telling the authorities. This EXACT SAME scenario happened to me in my Grade 10 Computer Literacy course - ": I made a picture of a Corvette for an assignment - and it was pretty good (over a decade ago back when Amiga's were a "hot item"). Later, I saw MY model on some other girl's screen, and she was trying to pass it off as her OWN work. Later it was proven to be mine, and she STILL would not even apologize. If she had asked me, I probably wouldn't have had a problem with letting her use it (although the teacher would have!) .. .She tried to cheat. And then she tried to lie about it. And then she didn't want to lose her pride in the midst of proof. I remember how RIPPED off I felt as the creator. If this is all a misunderstanding, and you've been telling the truth the whole time, then I'm truly sorry (in advance) for all the trouble you've gone through. I just don't buy it, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oreo Posted August 17, 2002 Author Share Posted August 17, 2002 pls make sure u read my newest post b4 this one b4 ANYONE post any reply Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonces Posted August 17, 2002 Share Posted August 17, 2002 Originally posted by Frumpus 2. you used somebody else's model as a "base", then tweaked, and pulled and added the verts to come up with something eltered (and you deliberately intended to deceive the community) Sums it up. Could somebody just close this thread? It's getting rediclious and sad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grafox Posted August 17, 2002 Share Posted August 17, 2002 Originally posted by oreo now lets assume that i 'stole'(as oddjob like to assume) the model from that guy and used it as a 'primitive' built base model, and then modified it to be a competely different and ORIGINAL model structure, i dont see how that would be stealing Well, that's pretty much what stealing is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oreo Posted August 17, 2002 Author Share Posted August 17, 2002 ok so grafox so u r saying that everyone who uses primitives and/or basic made shapes steals? cuz thats the scenerio i was using Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oreo Posted August 17, 2002 Author Share Posted August 17, 2002 and o yes KMAN pls close this thread! its getting ridiculous arguing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grafox Posted August 17, 2002 Share Posted August 17, 2002 Originally posted by oreo ok so grafox so u r saying that everyone who uses primitives and/or basic made shapes steals? cuz thats the scenerio i was using no no no, The primitives you create in max (ea sphere, box) you create yourself using the create menu. Altering someone elses mesh and then passing it off as your own is stealling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oreo Posted August 17, 2002 Author Share Posted August 17, 2002 forget it u dont get my point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frumpus Posted August 17, 2002 Share Posted August 17, 2002 Originally posted by oreo ". . . i assume most modelers here start with primitives when modeling, ... i dont see how that would be stealing EVEN IF thats wut i did... oddjob's obvious biased views, i really dont see how this model cant be an original item given the amount of difference and the OUTCOME of it... http://oreo8.netfirms.com/compare.jpg Ack! Oreo, you are digging your own grave even further. What you are supposing with this post is ridiculous. It's as if I tried to use ANY book in published form, edit it, then try to pass it of as my own creation . . . .on the basis that: "Well, we both used the same alphabet ("primitives") to create the words and the same grammar system to construct the sentences, so. . . I didn't "really" plagiarize, did I?" Try to get a competent lawyer to take on your case when the copyright lawsuit comes to your door. Look hard. I don't believe the evidence WAS biased in any way. Bias refers to prejudice, and it's clear Odd-job "post-judged" - after taking a good look at concerns he had. Calling him names doesn't lessen their potency. "Bias" will probably come when you try to release your NEXT model - when people in the community "pre-judge" that you may not FULLY author your work from scratch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonces Posted August 17, 2002 Share Posted August 17, 2002 The "ridiculous and sad" part was in refrence to this charade that you have gone on about for the past few pages. Just go ask for the origional authors premission (which I doubt he'll give you if he reads this thread) and be done with it already Sometimes I wish I was a moderator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oreo Posted August 17, 2002 Author Share Posted August 17, 2002 hmm... the dark side i sense in u... lol j/k ya wutever, i already restarted from scratch... all older files have been delted if this time u still say i copy then i have nothing to say... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grafox Posted August 17, 2002 Share Posted August 17, 2002 Originally posted by oreo i already restarted from scratch... all older files have been delted sure you have Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frumpus Posted August 17, 2002 Share Posted August 17, 2002 Originally posted by oreo . . . ya wutever, i already restarted from scratch... all older files have been delted if this time u still say i copy then i have nothing to say... *sigh* What do you mean, "this time"?! I don't think this is the point anymore. Your credibility on the CURRENT Trinity model is what's at stake; it's a TRUST issue now, and a RESPECT one. Who wants to see a liar weasel out of consequences?. . . Not me. It's too late to simply start a NEW model without FIRST admitting guilt; don't you realize this? Don't expect people to forget the first (and "suspect") model just becuase you "start fresh" on a new one, dude. It's just so obviously clear from the progression of your posts that you are trying to focus on rationalizing "why" what you did is ok (hypothetically, of course, right? . . . AND trying You CAN'T have it both ways, dude. Either own up to a lie you made in the beginning (and the lies that followed), or (if you REALLY aren't guilty of lying), then stop talking like your last thread, making it sound as if "all models are fair game as long as they look different enough when you're finished tweaking them." By the way you're handling the focus of this thread, you pour the appearance of guilt on your own head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rekked Posted August 17, 2002 Share Posted August 17, 2002 I must say this is the most incredible thread i've ever read.... :eek: :eek I have no words for what you've done, oreo. I will never ever eat your cookies... wait, this has not got to be funny! *slaps himself in the face* After all the stupid and fake reasons we've all heard why you didn't steal the mesh, I can only say that no work from you will be downloaded to my computer, ever. And for Oddjob, i must say this is the closest experience to the Colombo series i've ever seen! :D Great job man! Your knowledge of modelling is quite impresive. Congratulations, Mr. Poirot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddjob: A-Team Posted August 17, 2002 Share Posted August 17, 2002 Originally posted by oreo while i was thinking about this some interesting thought came up... i assume most modelers here start with primitives when modeling, and then u start manipulating verts, edges, polys etc to craft ur model out, so basically every model would start with a basic type of primitive shape that look more or less the same, can u say then that the models' 'underlying construction' (as oddjob like to put it)r all the same and therefore stolen? if for eg someone downlaoded a simple file that included a basic primitive built shape, and out of it he modeled something that looks completely different and released it to the public, then have that person stolen the model just cuz the 'underlying construction' was not his own? even tho given the fact that the outcome was a completely original prodcut? now lets assume that i 'stole'(as oddjob like to assume) the model from that guy and used it as a 'primitive' built base model, and then modified it to be a competely different and ORIGINAL model structure, i dont see how that would be stealing EVEN IF thats wut i did... infact alot of things in everyday life works that way... heres a comparison pic that I HAVE... instead of looking at oddjob's obvious biased views, i really dont see how this model cant be an original item given the amount of difference and the OUTCOME of it... http://oreo8.netfirms.com/compare.jpg Oreo, do you really think that any of the real modelers here won't notice even with this last picture? Here it comes.... Watch this.... http://home.attbi.com/~oddjob1138/img/compare.jpg Ok, in this image, all I did was take your 'compare.jpg' that you linked to in the post I quoted and put two pic's on top for comparison. A - is the HL model that you can download off the AHL modeling site and decomplile yourself in Milkshape. B - is obviously the 'new model' that oreo says looks so different. C - is supposedly the original that he took a picture of so he can show the differences between B and C and show that I am just being biased. D - is a second generation screenshot that oreo posted himself as a WIP pic of his own work. Now, take a look at A. You can download the model here: http://www.heavenofrags.de/reviews/player/~AustinTrinityRage.html Decompile it yourself if you do not belive me. With A you can see what the REAL original model looks like. Smaller breasts, no definition on the underside of the breasts(because the tank is streching across the cavity created by the two breasts), flat but, high heels on the boots. Now look at C. Supposedly that's the 'original' HL model. Not his work but the work that I have been accusing him of stealing. But for some reason it bares more resembalance to the model in D, the screenshot of his own work. The breasts are bigger than the original model A. The but is rounder than in A. The breasts and butt look exactly like the model in D, HIS model by his own admission. Look at the point I labeled 'e' on the C model. You can clearly see that the point between the breasts has been pushed up a bit to give some definition to the breasts(which makes no sense because she's wearing a paten leather tank top remember). But in the REAL original, that you can download for yourself, the breasts are not defined at all. Here's a front shot of the real model and oreo's own screen shot from the front this time with 'e' again for reference: http://home.attbi.com/~oddjob1138/img/compare_breasts.jpg For some reason, oreo's 'unbiased' picture uses a model he claimed HE made to be the original. C is supposed to be the work of the original modeler yet it has all the changes that he made in oreo's early 'work' that he posted as screenshots early in this post. Including Twins of Doom's 'fatter' and 'thicker' parts. Yet is supposed to be oreo's model! And the original model that anybody can download and decompile looks less 'fat' and less 'thick' that the one that oreo claims is the original. OREO, YOU JUST USED A MODEL YOU SAID WAS YOUR OWN WORK AS THE ORIGINAL MODELERS!!!! YOU WEREN'T EVEN SMART ENOUGH TO DO A FRESH DECOMPILE BEFORE YOU MADE YOUR 'UNBIASED' SCREENSHOT!!!!! What more proof does anybody need? Give it up. Do as Frumpus said and save what little of your reputation is left by admitting what we both, and most everybody else that comes to this thread knows: You stole the model. Oh, and I am not assuming. I KNOW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KBell Posted August 17, 2002 Share Posted August 17, 2002 isnt he done YET........maybe K-Man should just close this thread seeing as Oreo aint respondin..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddjob: A-Team Posted August 17, 2002 Share Posted August 17, 2002 And get it through your head that there is NOTHING you can post or say that I can't use logic and evidence to rip apart. NOTHING. Why? Because I have the benefit of truth being on my side. You might be able to fool people that are not modelers or ignorant of real modeling techniques, like Twins of Doom, but you CAN'T fool real modelers. And if my pics are biased, then what are they biased to? What motive to I have to just rip apart your model and call you a theif if it's not true? None. You just made the unfortunate choice to try to pull this crap on a board frequented by somebody very familiar with the model you passed off as your own. But then, that's the danger in lying. You might get caught. And how can my pic's be 'biased' when they are just YOUR screenshots with some of my own pasted on top for side by side comparison? How exactly, precicely and specificly is that 'biased'? Could you please explain in great detail how that could be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddjob: A-Team Posted August 17, 2002 Share Posted August 17, 2002 Oh, he's been replying. Look at the times of his posts. And Kman shouldn't close this thread until oreo admits he stole that model. If you don't like the thread, then don't read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KBell Posted August 17, 2002 Share Posted August 17, 2002 its not that i wont read it....its that i cant! my vision is practically destroyed thanks to you and your monsterious typings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oreo Posted August 17, 2002 Author Share Posted August 17, 2002 the sources we got the model from r different there r 2 versions of trinityrage out there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frumpus Posted August 17, 2002 Share Posted August 17, 2002 Originally posted by oreo the sources we got the model from r different there r 2 versions of trinityrage out there Oreo, what do you mean by "sources... out there"? Do you mean A. pictures and reference art (2D)? Or do you mean B. a 3D "base model" (a file containing a collection of XYZ coordinates) which you used as a starting point, then made changes to, to come up with your "finished" model? A. If by "sources" you mean just 2d art/concept ideas, then you just dug your own grave even further: Judging by how SIMILAR the different version of this Trinity are, . . . . it would be to YOUR ADVANTAGE to claim you used all the SAME reference art - to come up with SIMILAR looking models from scratch. However, as Odd-job showed us with he Fett models: when two DIFFERENT 3d artists do the SAME project from scratch,. . . the overall SHAPE of the outcome might be very similar, but the POLYGONS will have a completely different construction. It's especially easy to see this in low-poly models used for gaming. OR B. If, by "sources" you mean a "3D base model" already in female humanoid form, then what's this:? quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by oreo "i decided to start something fresh and i bring u Trinity!" "r u accusing me of stealing models!!! WTF!!!!!! u know theres also like a few diff anakins out there r u saying then they stole each other's models !!! dont accuse ppl u idiot!!!!!!!" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I believe we have the admision of guilt we've all been anticipating, except the contrite ("I'm sorry") attitude is missing; oreo still doesn't "get it" - that he deceived the community (or tried to); I really don't think he ever will. It appears he's desperate to weasel a way out of this WITHOUT ever coming right out and saying, "I'm sorry. I was wrong. I should not have lied that the model was my own. I should not have lied when questioned about it. I should not have let things get to this stage." I CERTAINLY used a "base model" to construct the bodies of three goblins you see here, http://jitd.fragland.net/php/upload/kram/3goblins.jpg and used it again for another elf-warrior model I'm working on. The difference is, I MADE THE "BASE MODEL" MYSELF!: http://jitd.fragland.net/php/upload/kram/July%2025%20elf%20&%20goblin.jpg . I used the verts from this she-elf model, then tweaked, and pulled, and divided, and turned edges to come up with the new ones. This is different from what you did in a fundamental way. You claimed (in the beginning) to have made the whole model from scratch. (Albeit now you're changing your story.) It is OK to do that with your OWN base models. It is NOT ok to do that with someone else's model, then LIE about - saying you made it yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.