PDA

View Full Version : Animated short created with Lightwave



cyborg_ty
01-10-2017, 04:27 PM
Here's a short animated movie that I created as I continue my journey to learn about Lightwave features, plugins, etc.
In this movie, you will see a simple example of what could happen if Batman didn't use krytonite.


https://youtu.be/WaIbjX_8gAM


Main tools used: Lightwave (of course), Octane, Syflex, clothFX, TurbulenceFD, motion mixer, IKBooster, Bullet Dynamcs, and more...

As you view this, remember I'm a hobbyist who enjoys learning and creating movies. Unfortunately, my day job prevents me from devoting the time that I would like (recently changed roles; work to life balance is better - yah!). Comments are welcome (constructive or otherwise).

Thanks for watching!

MonroePoteet
01-10-2017, 06:29 PM
:D:D:D

That was GREAT, especially since you're "just" a hobbyist! Truly superb, IMO. Storyline was excellent, visuals were consistent, voiceovers were hilarious, and the music made it epic. THANKS for doing a full credit roll-out, including the music, too often overlooked in shorts.

Something that seems (IMO) to get lost in modern CGI is the *story* guides everything rather than innumerable CGI battles, fights, explosions, destruction, etc.. The storyline in your piece is maybe, what, five sentences? And it works *great*!

WELL DONE!

mTp

djwaterman
01-10-2017, 07:01 PM
Pretty much everything from him driving to the fight and the fight couldn't be faulted, the shots and pacing were just right for getting across the joke. I would re-think some of the unnecessary big camera moves you used in your establishing shots, I don't feel they add anything that the eventual resting position of said shots already have. Actually you could probably remove most of the front end and start with the two subjects flying and driving to the fight location, with the title, "What would happen if Batman..." since the joke depends on that. I hadn't seen the film but I guess Batman brings Kryptonite to the fight.
So I felt it held up on a pro level if you removed or worked on the earlier establishing sections (that in my opinion probably aren't necessary).

Paul_Boland
01-10-2017, 09:44 PM
I loved it!! How did you do the water?

Scazzino
01-10-2017, 10:17 PM
Nice job! Keep em coming!

ernpchan
01-10-2017, 11:14 PM
Very amusing. Well done for a part time project.

bazsa73
01-10-2017, 11:28 PM
I'm still laughing dude, this is super funny :D

lardbros
01-11-2017, 05:21 AM
Haha... I was surprised how nice this was :) Great work and nice and amusing story :)

The baterang shot was frickin' awesome and hilarious... and can't fault the voice-over or the music really.
Animation was way above what I expected too, and the Tfd work was nice too.

Keep this up, and look forward to the next one!

Only crit is I'd work on the opening 'Cyborg Ty' bit... it actually weakens the quality of your main piece. The music was nice, just the animation looks a bit odd.

Surrealist.
01-11-2017, 05:34 AM
ROFL in a couple of places especially at the end. Worth the price of admission right there.

Good story telling all around.

Snosrap
01-11-2017, 06:59 PM
I liked it too! Especially the part in the credits where you copyrighted the whole thing even though you ripped everybody else off! :) Hilarious!!

jwiede
01-11-2017, 07:22 PM
I liked it too! Especially the part in the credits where you copyrighted the whole thing even though you ripped everybody else off! :) Hilarious!!

Yeah, if you're going to assert your own copyright, then at very least you should also attribute DC's and Lego's trademarks. Because companies MUST protect trademarks to retain them, you're basically taunting DC and/or Lego to take action making that public without any such attributions. Just adding boilerplate "DC, Batman, Superman, blah blah blah are registered trademarks of..." to the credits ought to be enough to avoid problems. You might slip under their radar for a while, but easier to CYA than have it bite you later if it gets popular.

Excellent short, aside from that. I do kind of agree with Lardbros about the initial self-promo clip's animation slightly detracting from the rest, but in general the short was quite well done, and very entertaining! Congrats!

Surrealist.
01-12-2017, 01:16 AM
Here is some info:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work

As far as copyright, you will find that a derivative work warrants its own copyright protection for the owner of that work. Which is the case here. Obviously it is an unauthorized derivative work. No one will argue that. Being a fan film, basically, and a short, released for free on the internet, you are not going to find any lawyers wasting their time going after you for not seeking permission. Even though legally they could.

Trademark is another ball of wax. And Jweide I have heard you express the idea that Trademark owners must defend their marks to keep them valid before. This is not actually the case. I don't know where you get that. And there is also no law requiring you to use the registered (R) or TM symbols either. A trademark is so, by simply being used in commerce. Registering it gives you acknowledged legal ownership. And makes it a lot easier to defend. But it is not even required. But of course highly recommended, for obvious reasons.

If someone is using your mark you can go after them if you feel it causes brand confusion or loss of income. But it is not required. Lawyers in this case will likely simply laugh and move on. It is not worth it. Anyone with half a brain knows who Batman and Superman belong to. So unless you are going to try and eek out some kind of niche in the market using your own Lego Superman and Batman, and thus cause confusion and potential loss of income, you won't likely hear a peep out of any lawyers for just playing around with a short fan film.

In a case like this, even for Logo, the benefits of doing nothing - free publicity - outweigh the benefits of pursuing legal action. And for legal action to take its full course, at some point it would have to wind up in front of a judge. And what judge is even going to take a case like this?

Here is a discussion:

http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/2838-how-to-protect-your-trademark-internationally.html

The owners of marks make the rules about what to do about violations. And as long as those measures are lawful, there are really no rules here.

jwiede
01-12-2017, 03:50 AM
Here is some info:

Trademark is another ball of wax. And Jweide I have heard you express the idea that Trademark owners must defend their marks to keep them valid before. This is not actually the case. I don't know where you get that.

Trademark and laches:


https://cyber.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm (see section 6 for overview)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverherzfeld/2013/02/28/failure-to-enforce-trademarks-if-you-snooze-do-you-lose/#9522b3077189 (good explanation of laches)
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=df99f747-9b31-442c-a03a-c31239ffc9c9 (great article detailing recent notable applications of laches defense)
https://affinitylaw.wordpress.com/2014/06/11/does-laches-remain-a-viable-defense-to-trademark-infringement-claims-after-the-supreme-courts-petrella-decision/ Laches after SC Patrella decision
http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/318298/Trademark/Supreme+Court+Gives+a+Primer+on+Laches+in+Intellec tual+Property+Cases
http://files.bakerbotts.com/file_upload/documents/NewYorkLawJournal-ScheinfeldArticle3.26.2014.pdf
http://www.iplawalert.com/2015/02/articles/trademark/in-trademark-infringement-matters-think-twice-before-waiting-laches-may-run-from-the-date-of-the-product-announcement-before-the-initial-sales/
http://www.finnegan.com/resources/articles/articlesdetail.aspx?news=2598d881-679c-4493-bcb7-00e15371cfa9
http://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/trademark-need-defended-9813.html


I can find a bunch more as needed. Page 25 of the USPTO "Protecting Your Trademark" document (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/trademarks/basics/BasicFacts.pdf) clearly states "Throughout the life of the registration, you must police and enforce your rights." (referring to registrant). Trademark owners aren't required to pursue every single infringement/dilution, of course, nor did I ever state that was the case.

BTW, I'm not saying I agree with how trademarks, patents, etc. are being used/applied today. I do, however, strongly believe anyone in business today needs a decent understanding of how IP rights work, including patents, trademarks, etc. and how they are actively being applied/used.

IANAL. Anyone facing trademark infringement claims, receiving "cease and desist", etc. should consult with a lawyer/attorney.

Surrealist.
01-12-2017, 04:18 AM
That is utterly absurd John.

The full reference is this:


Throughout the life of the registration, you must police and enforce your rights. While the USPTO
will prevent another pending application for a similar mark used on related goods or in connection
with related services from proceeding to registration based on a finding of likelihood of confusion,
the USPTO will not engage in any separate policing or enforcement activities.

What they mean is they will not police it for you. It is not a requirement to go around policing your mark and filing claims.

Remember you said:


Because companies MUST protect trademarks to retain them


That is of course a wild misinterpretation of the actual reference. And in the most absurd way it would mean that if you file a mark and no one violates it, and thus you never have reason to have filed a complaint, you'd loose your mark. Sorry but I have no idea what you are smoking here.

The things you actually have to do to maintain it are the following:


Rights in a federally registered trademark can last indefinitely if you continue to use the mark
and file all necessary maintenance documents with the required fee(s) at the appropriate times, as
identified below. The necessary documents for maintaining a trademark registration are:

And goes on to list those documents.

Surrealist.
01-12-2017, 05:04 AM
Oh and also you can't loose your mark on the basis that you have not defended it legally. Even in the case that it was a large violation. There is no way someone can take it over just by starting to use it and have that go uncontested. Anyone with half a brain could see that such a scenario would be impossible to enforce.

The mark is yours as long as you do not violate any of the other statues pertaining to it. And at any time anyone has a claim on you and your mark, the defining factors are continued use and proof of first use with the priority given to the first filing, if memory severs. I had spent quite a few hours in the law library years ago before the internet. I am fairly well read on this subject. But that said, I obviously can not advise legally. At any rate, this film is nothing to worry about. Trust me on that, but don't quote me.... lol

But the point being no. The lawyers are in no way obligated to follow up on all violations. And no one is required to show the Trademark symbol that applies either. In fact you can actually use TM without even filing.

https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/register.jsp

jwiede
01-12-2017, 05:08 AM
What they mean is they will not police it for you. It is not a requirement to go around policing your mark and filing claims.

The USPTO explicitly states the registrant IS responsible for policing. The reason policing is required is because of the doctrine of laches and the impact it has on ability to legally enforce trademarks. The USPTO explicitly states policing is the responsibility of the registrant (and not the USPTO) because the _requirement_ for policing is part of the law itself.


The things you actually have to do to maintain it are the following

That list only states what you need to do to keep a trademark registration active with the USPTO. It is in no way a comprehensive list of what is required to sustain a _legally-enforceable_ trademark.

You didn't really look at the references, did you?

The legal doctrine of laches applies broadly to rights instruments like trademarks and patents. There's very little discussion of it in the USPTO document, because that document is almost entirely about the registration process itself (though, again, it explicitly affirms need for policing). However, as the references I provided show clearly, the doctrine of laches clearly does apply to trademarks, and as a result necessitates policing by trademark holders. The US SC even specifically provided a "primer on laches" as part of their Patrella decision (see fourth ref I provided).

jwiede
01-12-2017, 05:19 AM
Trademark is another ball of wax. And Jweide I have heard you express the idea that Trademark owners must defend their marks to keep them valid before. This is not actually the case. I don't know where you get that.



But the point being no. The lawyers are in no way obligated to follow up on all violations.

:rolleyes:

A != B.


Trademark owners aren't required to pursue every single infringement/dilution, of course, nor did I ever state that was the case.

Surrealist.
01-12-2017, 07:16 AM
So I misunderstood what you meant then in that case. I took, retain, to mean maintain or keep which is what retain actually means. It is a strange way to word it. Saying enforce them would be better.


Yeah, if you're going to assert your own copyright, then at very least you should also attribute DC's and Lego's trademarks. Because companies MUST protect trademarks to retain them

Latches refer only to the ability to enforce rights on a case by case basis.

But none the less we should shot hijacking the thread. Yes?

I think we can agree it would be a good idea to state the fact that the owners of the trademarks are who they are. Copyright is another issue.

But regardless. It is a bit off topic.

cyborg_ty
01-12-2017, 10:20 AM
Thanks to everyone for your time and for all of the informative feedback!

Legal:
I will heed the warnings and consider adding 'registered trade mark' or relevant references in the future, especially where omission could raise some eyebrows. My previous videos did not tread in this space. Enough said.

Water:
The flat water sources (river at Wayne Manor and water in Bat Cave) are objects with Octane glossy material that has crumple procedural texture in the bump channel and a displacement map with a turbulence procedural texture (displacement on y) with the x position animated. I adjusted it to make sure the movement was noticeable with the gobo light casting on it.

The waterfall is based on particles with hypervoxels. So, this was rendered with Lightwave's native renderer (since Octane doesn't support hypervoxels yet). The intro camera shot is a composite of Octane and Lightwave rendered elements.

CyBoRgTy intro/production video:
I thought the same as some of you regarding the intro clip. As I was getting ready to upload the movie, I almost took the time to create another. But I was tired and decided to change it in future videos.

samurai_x
01-12-2017, 04:31 PM
jwiede = partypooper

MichaelT
01-13-2017, 03:22 AM
I think the short was excellent :) Nice job.

Regarding the copyright/trademark. There are cases where a companies lost their trademark etc.. because they didn't enforce when they knew their IP was infringed. They don't actively have to police things.. but they can't fully ignore it either. As long as they make some sort of statement surrounding their IP, and its use by the public.. they should be OK. A perfect example is Lucas, and his statement surrounding the Star Wars IP. If you don't use key characters (in certain situations) and it is for non profit.. you are OK with using that IP.

fishhead
01-13-2017, 03:59 AM
Back on Topic: I liked it much :-) Main crit about the film (not the cyborgtv thingy...) - as already someone else pointed out: some of the long sweeping camera moves just take you out of the story - IMHO one should avoid moves that you would have a hard time doing with a real camera until a topic explicitly calls for it, that is...

cyborg_ty
01-25-2017, 03:08 PM
Based on the comments, it appears the 'long sweeping camera move' in the beginning of the movie had the desired effect. I opened with a shot of a Lego Wayne Manor (I model in Modeler using image of Wollaton Hall in Nottingham, England as reference), but quickly revealed this is Batman's attic. And, who wants to spend any time looking at an attic? So (by way of the camera move), I was intentionally pulling you out of the attic towards the waterfall and eventually to the Bat Cave (underneath Wayne Manor).

Justifications for the use of cranes, quadra planes, steady cams, tools that effect camera moves, and how you move the camera are rooted in subjectivity/creativity. However, I will still give consideration to the related comments here, as I am very interested in improving my skills for future projects.

jwiede
01-25-2017, 08:08 PM
One minor thing (but a bit more than a "nit"): I thought there needed to be a bit more embellishment of what happens to Batman when Superman hits him. IMO, it just felt a bit too quick a resolution after all the buildup. This is Lego Batman after all, since disassembly isn't "gore" for Legos, maybe his arm should wind up separately hanging off the edge of the wall or something? Something to further emphasize the damage to Batman, if that makes sense.

The following are really minor nit-picks, they're just little stuff I noticed around the ending:

At the end, Batman seems to fly almost straight away down the street for a brief distance from Superman, then changes direction over to the building (at an even sharper angle). If you watch at 0.25x speed what I'm saying should be clearer, there seems to be a change in direction a few body widths behind Batman as he flies back. Batman's flight path just looked a little "off".


The building Batman slams into is pretty far over to Superman's right -- even for a left-hand hit, the angle seems a bit too much. As a possible solution, maybe have Batman (as he's tiring) move slightly offset to Superman's right side (you can have Superman turn slightly to compensate if want face-to-face, or just twist during punch if not), to better justify Batman flying away at that angle.

As I said, _really_ minor nits. They just caught my eye during normal speed playback, and seeing them at 0.25x speed kinda let me home in on why. Neither is even remotely close to a "problem", IMO.