@jacek.brzezowski hi Jazek,
This is Peter from xoio. I can understand your point, most definitely, thanks for telling us. But I am amazed that you seem offended by content you are getting for free at first hand?
At first we see it as a free set of tools we are sharing to a community we are working with, full stop. There is a promotional side to it, no doubt. We are aware that there are legal aspects concerning the persons, but that's why we gave it for free and wrote the disclaimer, so you can decide if you want to use it yourself. If you feel you can't use it, because of legal issues, then don't.
And honestly, I doubt, that a lot of similar databases you do buy (!!!) online have considered that aspect at all.
Appreciate your feedback.
I'm no way offended in any way but raising awareness about such "free" stuff as it might have some hidden aspects that some don't take into consideration. I assumed that this should be pointed out. I of course always appreciate when stuff is given out for free but the point is - you didn't have right to publish it under your copyrights in the first place.
Personally I'd feel kinda strange to find my kids used in an ad or outdoor billboard, wouldn't you?
And when I buy such databases I don't need to care about such stuff as the responsibility falls on the company that actually sells the images (unless licence claims otherwise, but I doubt that serious companies would do that).
Nonetheless as I pointed out - this images could be used as a basis for safe use.
And yeah - you've done good job with specifing lighting conditions for each person.
We will definitely keep that in mind for future things to come.
Thanks again, have a nice weekend!
this actually depends on the lawsuit and the country.
generally spoken a lot of trouble may come if you are using people without their knowledge in a professional and or published work.
i can assure you, that in germany (where xoio sits) there is absolutely no allowance to photograph anyone in public and use the the images without the subjects consent. the only exceptions are 1. poeple of public interest
2. photographs privately used
3. if the main object is not a person neither is a person the focus of the photograph.
@lasse1309 hey xoio great job!!! and since you did lots of work on the files you got all the copyrights... plus, since these people were fotographed in public (and most def never will appear on a huge billboard!!! - c'mon jacek ;) ) they will only have the right to ask you to remove it from an image.... if they are really present (which would be round 50% of the image....) ....so, i'm just saying thanks and all the architects will be happy as well not to always see the same faces on the visuals.. (we just had claim recently so i've just been brought up to date by our lawyers with all these legal concernes...)
Oh COME ON! From disclamer: "Depicted objects and persons have been photographed without their knowledge or explicit agreement." and yet "You are allowed to store these files for personal use , provided that you do not remove any copyright," and "There are no limitations on their personal or commercial use." If some of these people would see themselves on the visualisations you'll make you could be in trouble. Especially with kids here! It's a little tricky to use such sources - one can use only outlines, motion blur silhouttes etc.,but it feels kinda strange that a company distributes pictures of people without their permission.
Here's the continuation to Scott Baumberger's Non-Photorealistic Rendering (NPR) Approach to Architectural Visualization workflow article. In the previous article, Scott... more
The Hurst House by John Pardey Architects + Ström Architects is simple, clean and beautiful. That hovering box thing has... more