421 posts
  • Affiliate Level 2
  • Author Level 5
  • Collector Level 3
  • Featured Author
+4 more
nemanja_reMAKE
says

I disagree. I think this one’s a bad decision, actually.

If it was a copy and paste job from the original, then fair enough, I suppose, and only someone who’s had a look inside the file could know that.

But saying that that’s a copy is like saying that extrusion, reflection and specular highlights is now a copyrightable asset. It was well done and aesthetically different from the original and the sales showed there was a demand on the market place too. Removing files like this forces authors into an aesthetic of adding. Minimalism on the Hive is going to become a question of staking your turf and getting there first. Bad, bad, bad.

What’s more, I don’t know if these files use the script, but considering that you can knock the technical part of a file like this up in a couple of minutes using 3D Extruder, it seems a bit rich for authors to be squabbling amongst themselves about who thought of it first. And incidentally, if 3D Extruder had been used on both files, then the structure inside the project would look almost identical.

My 2c.

Couldn’t agree more. If I’m you I would fight for that project to be live again since it’s even better then Muko’s file and number of sales you got in one day confirm that.

30 posts
  • Author Level 3
  • Collector Level 2
  • Germany
  • 4 Years of Membership
+1 more
TrooperFX
says

I disagree. I think this one’s a bad decision, actually, and sends out a confused signal.

If it was a copy and paste job from the original, then fair enough, I suppose, and only someone who’s had a look inside the file could know that.

But saying that that’s a copy is like saying that extrusion, reflection and specular highlights is now a copyrightable asset. It was well done and aesthetically different from the original and the sales showed there was a demand on the market place too. Removing files like this forces authors into an aesthetic of adding. Minimalism on the Hive will become a question of staking your turf and getting there first. Bad, bad, bad.

What’s more, I don’t know if these files use the script, but considering that you can knock the technical part of a file like this up in a couple of minutes using 3D Extruder, it seems a bit rich for authors to be squabbling amongst themselves about who thought of it first. And incidentally, if 3D Extruder had been used on both files, then the structure inside the project would look almost identical.

I don’t doubt that nefos created that with the original file in mind, in order to cash in on sales. Naming the file after the original is a dead giveaway. Using the same music is downright naive.

But, intent aside, I think that this actually does take the visual principle further.

My 2c.

Its not about minimalism. Its about seeing a top seller and shamelessly recreating it with a different background and some other slipslop just to make money, instead of being original and using the time to create something new.

You can stil be minimalistic and create a clean 3d logo but if it looks like an already existing file with just another background… come on! :tired:

50 posts
  • Affiliate Level 5
  • Author Level 6
  • Collector Level 4
  • Weekly Top Seller
+5 more
Nefos
says


I disagree. I think this one’s a bad decision, actually.

If it was a copy and paste job from the original, then fair enough, I suppose, and only someone who’s had a look inside the file could know that.

But saying that that’s a copy is like saying that extrusion, reflection and specular highlights is now a copyrightable asset. It was well done and aesthetically different from the original and the sales showed there was a demand on the market place too. Removing files like this forces authors into an aesthetic of adding. Minimalism on the Hive is going to become a question of staking your turf and getting there first. Bad, bad, bad.

What’s more, I don’t know if these files use the script, but considering that you can knock the technical part of a file like this up in a couple of minutes using 3D Extruder, it seems a bit rich for authors to be squabbling amongst themselves about who thought of it first. And incidentally, if 3D Extruder had been used on both files, then the structure inside the project would look almost identical.

My 2c.
Couldn’t agree more. If I’m you I would fight for that project to be live again since it’s even better then Muko’s file and number of sales you got in one day confirm that.

Yeah. Thanks :D im already mailed support@envato.com but not responding… How to Contact envato. :( i got mail. My project is Not Removed. Only disabled and “Freezed me”... i sent all of required files. waiting mail :)

5327 posts
  • Elite Author
  • Moderator
  • Weekly Top Seller
  • Top Monthly Author
+13 more
felt_tips
Moderator
says

Its not about minimalism. Its about seeing a top seller and shamelessly recreating it with a different background and some other slipslop just to make money, instead of being original and using the time to create something new. You can stil be minimalistic and create a clean 3d logo but if it looks like an already existing file with just another background… come on! :tired:

It’s very much about minimalism. I agree that nefos intent was to creat a lookie-likey.

But that doesn’t alter the fact that if the inherent parts of a 3D logo appear to be “copyrighted” – rotation, extrusion to various depths, bevelling, specular highlights and reflectivity, then if you make a minimal 3D logo, you’re running the risk of having your file removed.

So what do you do? You add stuff. From a design point of view… bad.

You’ve got to keep one eye on unwanted side effects when you take actions like this.

1752 posts I create things I wish existed
  • Elite Author
  • Winner
  • Weekly Top Seller
  • Top Monthly Author
+10 more
cyzer
says

Yes it looked better and more professional. But I think only the creator has a right to update/improve/upgrade the item. Because all it was – a improved version of mukos file.

50 posts
  • Affiliate Level 5
  • Author Level 6
  • Collector Level 4
  • Weekly Top Seller
+5 more
Nefos
says

Yes it looked better and more professional. But I think only the creator has a right to update/improve/upgrade the item. Because all it was – a improved version of mukos file.
So why Muko not improve Project.? So i improved & Uploaded its not allowed.? Too many same tablet projects they why not disabled.? sry for my bad english
8176 posts
  • Author Level 6
  • Trendsetter
  • Weekly Top Seller
  • Community Superstar
+8 more
doru
says

maybe is just hidden. did you get an email from staff? check the spam folder also. what they said?

1121 posts inlifethrill
  • Affiliate Level 5
  • Author Level 9
  • Collector Level 3
  • Top Monthly Author
+12 more
InlifeThrill
says

Should not this logic be valid here then: “Hey, Imaginary Forces did not invent pieces of text that rotate, spin and assemble together. Why can’t I build a transformers-like logo then?” I’d be hard rejected the very same second the reviewer sees the file..

My point being, a simple operation by itself cannot be reserved nor claimed by anyone alright but a very specific order in which things are layered, designed and animated over time could be a good reason to do so. Leaving the current debate aside, just thoughts I felt like sharing. Having this said, I look at my portfolio.. I may consider removing a few project now. :bigwink:

50 posts
  • Affiliate Level 5
  • Author Level 6
  • Collector Level 4
  • Weekly Top Seller
+5 more
Nefos
says

I got mail. Attached pdf:
Sender lnformation: Details removed

hehe… Muko Reported me… My item only disabled. Now how to Enable my item.? Please help.

5327 posts
  • Elite Author
  • Moderator
  • Weekly Top Seller
  • Top Monthly Author
+13 more
felt_tips
Moderator
says

Should not this logic be valid here then: “Hey, Imaginary Forces did not invent pieces of text that rotate, spin and assemble together. Why can’t I build a transformers-like logo then?” I’d be hard rejected the very same second the reviewer sees the file.. My point being, a simple operation by itself cannot be reserved nor claimed by anyone alright but a very specific order in which things are layered, designed and animated over time could be a good reason to do so. Leaving the current debate aside, just thoughts I felt like sharing. Saying this and looking at my portfolio – I may consider removing a few project of mine. :bigwink:

Bad logic though…

  • Transformers logo is a specific logo… the logo has been designed and textured and that’s a specific part of the animation… in fact that’s the bigger part of the animated logo.
  • The Transformers logo does something complex and very specific in terms of animation… it transforms… and in a very specific way.

In a template, on the other hand, the design of the logo doesn’t exist – that’s exactly the part that you replace. In the project in question, the animation is not something specific and recognisable – it’s just rotation.. or a camera pass. There’s nothing in the file apart from the 3D-ness.

For the record, I’ll state once again, that the similarity, the music and the name of nefos file demonstrates that it’s a copy (or too heavily influenced, at least), and for that reason it probably deserves to be removed. My main contention is that this particular file removal, although justified, sends a very mixed message.


But I think only the creator has a right to update/improve/upgrade the item.

@Cyz – The thinking’s fine if the file’s not completely minimal. According to your thinking, only Muko has the right to create a minimal 3D logo with levels on the Hive. To someone like myself who’s been doing this for years, this just comes over as daft. In fact it’s such a common task, I’ve even created a script to do just that in After Effects. The script comes with a specific preset for creating multi-level extruded logos. I shouldn’t be all that surprised if Muko used it to create his/her file.

Surely you’re not telling me that I’m not allowed to use my own work but Muko is?

by
by
by
by
by
by