3 ms·
And, to me, creating bones of a character seems a lot like extracting individual hits of a beat. Both allow you to easily re-arrange the original creation. (Let
by dls2016 5y ago
And, to me, creating bones of a character seems a lot like extracting individual hits of a beat. Both allow you to easily re-arrange the original creation. (Let's assume that you own the copyright to the underlying recording in the ReCycle situation, so as to avoid a discussion of the legal implications of sampling music.)
I'm sure if I dug into a professional animation application, I could find a dozen more analogous tools.
I don't see where the legal complexity is. Not that I'm a lawyer, but I can't think of a single case where a tool to automate artistic tedium resulted in some transfer of copyright.
- blagie 5y ago> And, to me, creating bones of a character seems a lot like extracting individual hits of a beat. I agree. > (Let's assume that you own the copyright to the underlying recording in the ReCycle situation, so as to avoid a discussion of the legal implications of sampling music.) And this assumption isn't valid, and it's precisely where the complexity comes in. The tool doesn't just create bones. It has a bunch of rather nice gaits which presumably a human artist designed to be nice to look at: - 8 dancing movements - 8 funny movements - 7 jumping movements - 9 walking movements I think those are analogous to the samples you're using in your example. If the sample is a generic recording of a piano, that's one thing. If it's Justin Bieber saying "Stay," that's another thing.
- dls2016 5y agoGood point, which I didn't appreciate. But I'd argue the pre-programmed gaits are more analogous to "presets" and not samples. To be honest I don't if use of presets falls under the same copyright rules as use of samples.