If I download images from legal sites,(for example I download images of Angelina Jolie from google.com and use those reference images) to create 3d models is legal or illegal? Plese solve my problem.
From what I have learned, or heard. And please anybody correct me if I am wrong. If you are using an image off of Google it is legal, that is what google was created for pretty much. Now if you were to go onto a photographers website, and take his images and duplicate them with your name saying you took them, you could get sued. But if your going to use them as reference in order to model, chances are your going to have many different pictures from many different sources. I personally do not think you have anything to worry about. I hope that helped.
as far as I know, using pictures as reference for other creative works is not something that is illegal, and I guess it falls under the creative commons rules or something like that. The thing that actually is illegal, though, is if you take the composition and creative concept of that image and straight up duplicate it, without giving the correct reference to the original work. Re-using the original work as part of your own is also illegal, for example if you model a picture frame, then go onto google and take some pic from there and place it inside the frame, thus making it seem like it is a part of your own creation. Until the Orphan Works Act gets passed (which I sure hope it won’t, which is an argument I’ll take with anyone), the rights to any creative work lies with the artist who made it, and to use it you have to locate the owner and get his permission.
So to sum things up, if you’re using these images for modeling reference, I’m sure you’ll be OK.
Thank you adio38 and larsivar, thanks to answer my first post, your answer has solved my problem, ZBrush is a great software and zbrushcentral is a very nice forum and the members are also very good and I am very happy I am part of this forum. Thank to zbrushcentral
In short… all wrong. If you did not take the image yourself, then it does not belong to you. If it does not belong to you, then you have no right to do anything with it, except with the permission by the owner in writing. If you cannot identify the owner, then stay away. This will keep you out of trouble.
Even if you take an image of a celebrity from Google/News Source and model it, you cannot use that model without the permission of the celebrity as they have their right to their likeness.
Horde’s of Hollywood lawyers would descend on your carcass to devour your last atom in case an entertainment business law is broken.
Rainer
Honestly, I think you are going a bit overboard here.
He asked if it was alright to use an image hes found on the net as a reference only. There is nothing wrong with that as long as it isn’t used commercially.
Say you are working on your demo reel and need some female facial references, you can without a doubt take a photo of say Angelina Jolie (or whoever) as a reference for bone structure, proportions etc…
Now, if you were to see a really cool 3d model, photo, sculpture etc… that you like and decided to replicate it exactly to be used in an ad, short film or what not, then obviously you would need to contact to copyright owner for permission.
thanks lemonnado to read my post an answer about it. But I m agree with SimonTG ( thank you SimonTG). And if I use the image of any celebrity or any other person as reference, 3d model will not be exectally same then no one will hurt. Thank friends 
LEMO,
You have got to cut back on the coffee. :rolleyes:
The word “REFERENCE” is key to this question.
If a person uses any image from anywhere as a “REFERENCE” then there is ABSOLUTELY NO ILLEGALITY.
The word REFERENCE indicates that it is a GUIDELINE for the development of a “NEW” IMAGE and not a plagerization. This means that you are not in any way doing anything but being influenced by other subject material in the same way as art has over the centuries been “IN THE SCHOOL OF” lets say Davinci eg.
A word of caution though. If you are sued by someone and your work is deemed by a judge to be so similar to a copyrighted artwork or for that matter even a non copyrighted artwork in special cases then you may be in trouble but not because you used the material as a reference but because you are deemed to be “STEALING” a “CREATIVE OWNERSHIP OF CONTENT” or “Intellectual Porperty” - HMMM? I hear you say - this sounds a bit convoluted - well you are right and the law is very vague in this regard and it will likely depend on the quality of your lawyer rather than on the law how the case would be adjudged. Not only that but the law is different in countries and there is very little internationally enforcable law at all.
Within your own country you have a relatively good chance if indeed your intellectual property rights are protected under law but it will be a costly affair to actually sue somebody.
Now to a moral and a practical point.
It should be obvious even to a an idiot that if you are using other peoples work and passing it off as your own that you will be discovered and quickly put to the sword (metaphorically speaking). Besides that, any professional company that uses this “STOLEN” work would be seriously jeopardizing its future by such actions as clients would very quickly dump you. So there is a natural selectyion process at work which is far more effective than the law. Once an artist has been “OUTED” as a plagarist they usually disappear from the scene very quickly.
Your best protection is to state your intention and reference material and give due credit to any material you used in your work so that people are well informed about it by YOU! That indicates that you are doing this truthfully and with no intention of subterfuge!
I hope this helps you with your question!
Just using stuff you do not own, which you did not create, and for which purpose you have no permission whatsoever is not legal, ok, or ethical.
Take a camera and take your own reference images with permission and you are the hotness. You lean back in front of the monitor, rip off someones work from Yahoogle, even ‘only’ for reference, and you are the lameness!
"Oh dude, what a cool model, what did you use as reference…
Aehhh, errrr… I copied something from the Internets and used it without permission… "
cmon, you can do better.
Lemo
PS:Sure, my point seems extreme, but that’s where it’s at. Create original art work with original substance and an appropriate foundation.
I understand that you are very serious about this aspect but I need to point out to you that using reference material is just that - its REFERNCE and it does not really matter where that comes form.
It is what you produce that counts.
If we apply your strict opinion to lets say art produced by Leger and Picasso we could easily draw the conclusion that they were PLAGIARIZING each other becasue it would be difficult to prove now after 100 years who “stole” from whom.
As stated above the entire question that was asked is whether there are legal concerns regarding reference material and I answered that quite sufficiently.
I do not condone plagiarization either but it is a grey area at best and being too self righteous about it makes me wonder whether there are some residual reservations within you as to how you have made some of your own work - I mean no disrespect but I am almost certain that I have used someone elses idea somewhere in my work and did not even register it consciously. We are all influenced by all that we see. So where do you draw the line? A lot of people get on their high moral horses about all sorts of things these days - just look at the liberal juggernaut that is riding the swell of popular politics in the US these days. All these very politically correct democrats serving up the how and why of how we should behave.
I mean that is a bit rich is it not?
Reference is just that - just reference and not the product.
seems like lemo has had some bad experiences 
as long as u as an artist are not able to reproduce the picture 100%
the same as cg with the same camera placement etc i guess no one would care.
if ur able to do 100% i guess theyd just sue you cause they think ure simply posting theyr fotograph