Shop More Submit  Join Login
×

:icontrackdancer: More from Trackdancer



More from deviantART



Details

Submitted on
January 31, 2013
Submitted with
Sta.sh Writer
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
10,648
Favourites
34 (who?)
Comments
113
×
MMD Just Alice Again by Trackdancer



There are very few topics that elicit more "passionate" discussions within MMD than the controversy surrounding what are generally referred to as "Illegal Edits". Now, I've publically made the statement that I did not believe that there's such a thing as an "Illegal Edit", but then again that's just an opinion. 

I could be totally wrong too.

Which is why, I felt it would be a useful exercise to look at this issue in a rational manner purely for the purposes of discussion. The views presented herein, are solely mine. Although, I will be touching on the subject from a "Legal" perspective, let me state clearly that I am not a lawyer, so what is presented here is my interpretation which may or may not be correct.

In order for this discussion to provide any useful information, I have divided the topic into several areas that I feel are relevant and need to be examined in some detail. These will be:

  1. Copyright Laws & The original modeler's rights as provided by Law
  2. Fair Use & An editor's rights as provided by Law
  3. The US First Amendment , "Free Speech" and the Arts
  4. The Japanese Doujinshi culture
  5. What is an "Illegal Edit"; is there even such a thing?
  6. Are the Japanese correct; is there a problem "Overseas"?
  7. The Real Rules
Note 1: This discussion is limited purely to the subject of the editing of models made for MMD. Furthermore, as I do not want to end up writing a book, I will keep my arguments short. If you wish to take contention with any point raised herein, please feel free to add to the discussion in the comments section below.
Note 2: When I use the term "Law", this refers specifically and only to US Laws (unless otherwise stated).
Note 3: MMD or Miku Miku Dance is a freeware 3D software program used to animate and pose models of Vocaloid models and their variants. If you need more information on this program please visit this link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MikuMiku…


Copyright Laws & The original modeler's rights as provided by Law



Any original creative work is automatically protected under US Copyright Laws. This protection is, as I understand it, extended even to works produced outside of the USA where existing treaties are in place. So a work created in Japan, for example, is protected by the Copyright Laws of both the USA and Japan. See here if you want details: www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38…

For our purpose then, we can probably safely assume than an MMD model made by an artist in Japan is protected by US Laws. So, what exactly do these protections afford? Here is an explaination of what Copyrights actually provide (in general terms) from en.Wikipedia.org: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyrigh…

Copyright is a legal concept, enacted by most governments, giving the creator of an original work exclusive rights to it, usually for a limited time. Generally, it is "the right to copy", but also gives the copyright holder the right to be credited for the work, to determine who may adapt the work to other forms, who may perform the work, who may financially benefit from it, and other related rights.
So, as presented, a Japanese modeler creating an original model for MMD has (at least) the following rights:

  1. Exclusive Rights
  2. The right to be credited for the work
  3. The right to determine who may adapt the work to other forms

Which means, they CAN state what can and cannot be done with their models and the Law is on their side. Therefore, anyone editing an MMD model in a way that is not inline with the "expressed" (read that last word as "written") intentions of the original modeler is breaking the Law.

Wow, this is going to be a short discussion isn't it? Well, no. Let's look at the other side of the equation.


Fair Use & An editor's rights as provided by Law



The term "editor" used here refers to anyone editing an existing MMD model.

In the USA, there is something called "Fair Use". Fair Use limits legally some of the copyrights of the copyright owners. So, pertaining to MMD, what Fair Use guidelines can apply and do they apply to edits?

First off, Columbia University has provided this really useful Fair Use check list: copyright.columbia.edu/copyrig…

Rather than me explaining it in details, use this checklist against some of the edits found here in the DA galleries. You may be surprised at what is and isn't Fair Use. In a nutshell, most MMD model edits cannot be protected by Fair Use arguments - the original author's rights still hold absolute sway.

Now one of the arguments often raised is does the editor of a model that is edited within the guidelines imposed by the original model have any sway? That's to say can the editor of a model impose their own restrictions? The answer to this question is "YES" they can as their edit is protected in exactly the same way. However, there maybe a significant restriction. That is (as I understand it) they cannot impose a restriction that is contrary to the original model makers restrictions. Furthermore, the edit must carry with it at least some of the restrictions imposed by the original modeler.

A good example of this, in order to understand this, is to take by way of example, Mamama's Gumi. You can edit, but you cannot change the edit into any other character other than Gumi.

But is this edit of Gumi (by way of example) legal?: fav.me/d5cgd0l

This is an interesting case example because basically what was done here is rather than edit the Gumi model, parts of her were taken and applied to another model but the new edit is still "Gumi". I cannot answer this, and I won't. Ultimately, only Mamama can determine whether or not this is in keeping with his original intentions. However, it does clearly show that there are different ways to interpret an original author's intent.


The US First Amendment , "Free Speech" and the Arts



This is a very interesting discussion in itself and is highly controversial. I refer you to this article for a more comprehensive discussion: www.copyhype.com/2010/09/artis…

What I will do here is to make my case, and note that this is only my way of thinking. Additionally, my line of reasoning might not be legally sound. Also let me make it very clearly that I am only referring to pictures of edited models for show and not those edited for redistribution.

My argument is that we should, as a community, make allowances for pictures to be shown of models that have been edited against the expressed wishes of the original model if it is done as an "artistic interpretation". And in addition, it is my belief, that this is a form of "Free Speech" and therefore (possibly) permissible under the First Amendment. Please do not interpret what I am saying here to mean that I support "anything goes", images of edited models used to promote obscene behavior or racist messages, to name but two, should still be proscribed.

The counter argument usually is that the original author's wishes should be respected. This is a totally valid argument, but I still argue that it should be permissible if someone does choose to edit an MMD model "illegally" and (only) show an image of the same. I may not personally agree with the edit, nor like it, but I feel that they have a "right" to do so as a form of self-expression.

Clearly, these types of edits are infringing on the copyrights of the original modeler, but before you draw any conclusions please examine also my following argument.


The Japanese Doujinshi culture



If you think about it, MMD is really a part of the Doujinshi genre. The program was made to make it possible for anyone to create animation videos of (originally) Miku Hatsune and the rest of her "gang". Miku, Neru, Rin and several others of the Crypton Future Media, Inc.'s characters are bundled with the software and these are provided under their licence.

Subsequently, other character models were made for MMD, I suspect many without the formal permission of the character's copyright owners, of characters from popular Japanese anime series. For example, all five of the primary characters from K-ON were made available by Japanese model maker Kakomiki who also created Alice who comes from the Queen's Blade franchise.

The Japanese's own view of Doujinshi is not completely unified as clearly, most of it does infringe on the copyrights of commercial companies. See this article from en.wikipedia.org for more details: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C5%8Dj…

Yet, it does happen. It is tolerated and even permitted and some people's careers (such as CLAMP's) started out in the Doujinshi circle. Doujinshi is even recognized by some institutions in Japan as legitimate "art". When those of us "Overseas", as the Japanese refer to us, imported manga and anime we also adopted some of the culture associated with those interests. Of note here is "Cosplaying" which is highly popular and you will find Deviants devoted to this part of the culture all over DA.

So, when someone edits a model "illegally", aren't they in actual fact also engaged in the same type of Doujinshi activity? Once again, my stipulation here is that no model redistribution is happening.


What is an "Illegal Edit"; is there even such a thing?



Thus far, we've looked at several factors and can safely draw the conclusion that my original proposition that: "There is no such thing as an 'Illegal Edit'" is incorrect if argued purely from a legal standpoint.

Haha - I was WRONG - ok, so I'll go eat some humble pie then. ^^

As for pictures of models that are made for private use only, my contention still stands that these still should be permitted so long as they remain private. Some may take a strong objection to this, but I suspect that most people won't.

Those of you who are more astute may have noticed that I've taken a contrary stand.

  1. I recognize that edits can actually be "Illegal"
  2. I support the showing of "Illegal" edits as "Art" in the Doujinshi sense and as a form of "Free Expression"

(Once again, I emphasize that I do not support illegal distribution).

So am I really contradicting myself? No. I don't believe so. If there is a contradiction, it is inherent within the MMD Community at large both here (Overseas) and in Japan. Opinions and views will differ on this issue and I am not, in writing this article, arguing for one case or the other. Rather, it is to highlight the fact that there are contrary viewpoints, each with valid arguments supporting their case.


Are the Japanese correct; is there a problem "Overseas"?



When you go to Bowlroll.net, you will see this statement posted on model download pages by default:

昨今、投稿者に無断での転載、改造等が発生し、大きな問題となりました。
(特に、海外で多数発生していることを確認しております)
その結果、一部の投稿者からは素材の提供を停止する事態となっております。

Which GOOGLE's translation service renders as:

Nowadays, reprinted without permission, such as remodeling occurs to the author, was a big problem.
(In particular, we are sure that you have encounter a number of overseas)
As a result, some of the contributors has become a situation to stop the provision of material.

And you will find this type of text, some of it not that polite either, in documentation accompanying some of the models made for MMD. If I were not such a generous person, I would be inclined to think that these types of statements are "xenophobic".

I mean if you really think about it, the Japanese themselves are equally guilty of these allegations are they not? Actually, no. If you pushed me, I wouldn't be able to find a single example of an illegally edited model made available for download by a Japanese MMD fan.

So why do we have this problem "Overseas"? Why is this problem unique to us? Honestly, you don't have to dig that hard around DA to find examples of possibly illegally edited models made available for download. For starters, all game rip models are illegal by definition. (I'll admit though, that although I personally have made a choice to stop the practice of downloading rips, I have used them in the past and still have a few ripped models in my collection).

The perception is that we do, or more precisely, we did have a problem with illegal edits made available for redistribution. I don't believe that the problem is so great now. But have you stopped to ask why this may have been the case? Once again, I'm going to put forward an "opinion". I think this problem exists not so much from willful intent, but more from ignorance, simply because most of these edits were done by minors. When I say "minors" I mean to say persons that are legally minors, of which, we who are "Overseas" have a lot more of than in Japan within the confines of this hobby.

Some sites, such as, Corbis Images www.corbisimages.com/ do not allow minors to have accounts.

“Minors and children (persons under the age of 18) are not eligible to use this Site unsupervised and we ask that minors and children do not register for an account or submit any personal information to us. By using this Site unsupervised, and/or registering for an account, you warrant that you are 18 years of age or older.”


Is this because minors cannot legally enter into contracts? Or is there something else to it?

As a modeler, I have noted something very particular about the behavior of some within the MMD Community. My screen name "Trackdancer" comes from my days creating models for a program called Microsoft Train Simulator (MSTS). I used to build 3D models of trains (and other things) for this simulation. I make no claims that I was the best at this, but I must have been pretty good at it as a lot of people made it a part of their hobby repainting my train models.

Let me give you an example.

I created a version of the UK Class 60 diesel locomotive. Specifically, I created locomotive #60100, "The Hundred of Hoo". People then started using the model to create almost the entire series of that locomotive in service in the United Kingdom. Some were in different liveries, but the majority of them were just renumbered from my original. How did I know this? Well, because people actually wrote to me to ask permission to edit the model, even if it was just a renumber and gave me credit for the model in every single case.

Fat chance that that would ever happen in the "Overseas" MMD Community.

If I look at the demographic of the MMD Community in Japan and at the MSTS Community, they have one thing in common. An almost total absence of minors. So to solve the problem of "Illegal Edits" there is only really one logical solution:

BAN ALL MINORS FROM THE MMD COMMUNITY


No one under the age of 18 is permitted to "play" with Miku or any other Vocaloid model. 
Problem solved, let's move on.
.

..
...


That's not going to work is it? So what is the real solution?

The only one I can think of is to educate them. Which is the primary reason why I wrote this article. Also, a few of the MMD Groups and individuals within the MMD Deviant Art community have already done a great job in "getting the word out", highlighting what is and what is not "kosher" in terms of editing and offering of models and parts thereof for download.


The Real Rules



Here are my proposition on what to edit and how to treat original and edited models within MMD. Take these as "suggested" practices only and do feel free to amend to them as I'm sure I have made some omissions.

  • Always credit your sources (the original model makers). If you use it, credit it.
  • Never edit or redistribute a model that an author specifically prohibits and if doubt, don't do it.
  • Never assume that you have any rights to do "whatever" with a model if this is not clearly stated.
  • Never redistribute a model without being sure that you have included a readme.txt with proper credits, have the correct permissions and as a courtesy, try to include any ORIGINAL documentation in your own package.
  • Respect other model makers.
  • Respect other users.
  • Don't steal other people's "art" to use in your own work (or claim as your own).
  • If in doubt, seek permission. 
  • Don't twist the meanings of rules that others have made to try and suit your own selfish agenda.
  • Please bear in mind that your stupid actions may have negative repercussions on the rest of the MMD Community. 

Thanks for reading. Have a fun time editing models "legally" for MMD. There is really plenty of scope already with the resources available not to have to "illegally" edit models. At the end of the day, if you respect others, others will respect you and in the end this will really become a better community for everyone.




Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this article are purely my own and are presented for discussion purposes only.
Please feel welcomed to add your thoughts.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconmaniacoloco:
maniacoloco Featured By Owner May 31, 2014
Lol MMD scene is a bullshit with a lot of myths, tabooes and modelers feeling like they're gods and their work can't be touched. Really, it's riduculous, not even videogame developers are so greedy with their work being available in the net and being used in a lot of mods. Just see garry's mod steamworkshop and you'll understand what I say, enter to eventhubs and they talk about SSFIV mods which began in xentax (without permimssion of Capcom to begin with) and Capcom knows that and they do nothing.
Reply
:icontrackdancer:
Trackdancer Featured By Owner Jun 2, 2014
Not everyone subscribes to your view, which is why these discussions are important. It helps if we can all get along.
Reply
:iconmattwo:
mattwo Featured By Owner May 21, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
All of this implies that that models are actually copyrighted, which if they're custom made, and not game rips or the like, more often than not, they aren't.

The model creator's rights are even more dubious if it's a model of an existing character, which as far as I'm aware could easily infringe upon intellectual property rights, thus making any attempt at actually copyrighting the model pointless.

In other words, the model creators have no means of actually enforcing their rules. The only way their rules can be followed is out of respect. I don't respect their rules mind, but I'll follow them anyway, because I don't feel like dealing with people I've ticked off.
Reply
:icontrackdancer:
Trackdancer Featured By Owner May 21, 2014
1/. Many of the original models are copyrighted.
2/. Game rips are ... well you know.
3/. For existing characters, the models are generally legal as they were (probably) made under some sort of license agreement. Most Miku models are in fact covered under either the Piapro license or a CC license or both. As such, the models themselves are legally the intellectual property of the modelers even though the character still belongs to the licensor.
4/. Model creators can and some have enforced their rules through channels made available to protect their rights. You don't need a lawyer to do this.

BTW - if you download a legal model and use it, you're contractually bound to it's Terms of Use (the 'rules') - so it's not actually a choice whether to respect the rules, you're contractually bound to it so long as you keep and use the model.
Reply
:iconmattwo:
mattwo Featured By Owner May 21, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Well, of course Devaintart does have rules against stolen art, nearly forgot about that.

I highly doubt any of those models were actually copyrighted, a lot of people on DA claim copyright when really the most they actually have is a creative commons licence, which isn't as easy to enforce, but like I said, here on Deviantart they have rules about that. Same goes for places like pixiv and tumblr.

Youtube only has rules about stolen videos and the DMCA, but they never actually bother to check if the claimant actually owns an actual copyright, that's how the so-called animeflaggers got away with what they did for so long before youtube finally realized there was a problem. Then they added content ID and THAT started getting abused by people who didn't actually own any rights.

I should point out that the content ID system completely bypasses the DMCA and all responses are handled by the owner of the content ID, allowing them to deny a counter-claim even when they are wrong.

Maybe all of this is why people seem to fall under the delusion that their work is actually copyrighted, when in reality, it's all about how certain websites are run.

Just look at all the stolen and un-credited art used in stupid little slideshow videos on on youtube. Nothing is ever done about those, EVER. Well, unless an artist happens to notice their work in one and flags it for copyright of course, which as I said before, will work even though they don't actually have any copyrights.

I once got a content ID match from THE MEGAS, even though CD Baby only protected their work from the actual owners of the music from taking their work down, and didn't allow them to take anyone else's work down(I know this for certain because they redacted the claim, and they've redacted several other similar claims as well).
Reply
:icontrackdancer:
Trackdancer Featured By Owner May 23, 2014
I absolutely agree with 99% of what you just wrote. Just want to point out that a lot of my work is cover under a CC license to allow ease of use from a legal standpoint - that does not mean, however, that I've released the copyrights to them. So far, I've not seen any one abuse the system. But then again, these works were intentionally made for others to use.
Reply
:iconmattwo:
mattwo Featured By Owner May 23, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Creative Commons is not actually copyright.

I just checked creativecommons.org/about

"Creative Commons licenses are not an alternative to copyright."

From what I can gather, it's just a different way of using copyright, but it's meaningless without an actual copyright registered.

As for abusing systems, Deviantart's reporting system is freaking hard to abuse because the community team is so lazy making it hard to use right as well. I'm not going to go into details about how they totally gave me the cold shoulder in regards to a situation in dire need of their attention though.

It's mostly just youtube's copyright flagging and content ID systems that are abused. I've not heard of any other similar cases on other websites.
Reply
:icontrackdancer:
Trackdancer Featured By Owner May 23, 2014
"Creative Commons is not actually copyright." - it provides the framework of a license that provides provisions for the use of copyrighted materials which is why I use it.

DA's reporting system - ??? - I always felt that pay users get preferential treatment so I've stopped using them, nor do I need them either. As long as DA can provide servers to host my stuff I'm happy. 

YouTube is possibly worse - like how do you even get to communicate with their staff? But then again it's 'FREE' to use. I got hit with a strike only once and that's probably from an abusive user rather than a business entity, but I was pushing my luck in that instance anyway so I just let it slide.
Reply
:iconmattwo:
mattwo Featured By Owner May 23, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
What you have actual copyrights then?
Reply
:icontrackdancer:
Trackdancer Featured By Owner May 24, 2014
In my case yes, most of my work is original.
Reply
(1 Reply)
Add a Comment: