CD Jewel Case anyone?
Martin_C
Posts: 164
So... that's one of the things that I was absolutely sure to find whenever I would need it, but - in fact - I couldn't...
I'm looking for a Poser/DAZStudio 3D model of a standard CD "jewel case", that's the classic thingy with the (removable) tray on the inside. Although CDs seems to be on the route of extinction in the long term, I just assumed that were so common in the past that it would be easy to find, but neither the 3 usual suspects DAZ, Renderosity and RuntimeDNA, nor a Google search showed anything Poser compatible.
I first though that I already had it, because I once got this as a freebie:
http://www.daz3d.com/cd-player-cd-case-and-cd
...but that's a so called "slimline" case and not a "jewel case", so it is only half as thick and misses the tray.
And that one here:
http://www.daz3d.com/dvds-and-stand
...is a perfect "amaray" DVD case, which I would consider to be much more obscure compared to a "jewel case" CD to be honest...
Searching the net I found lots & lots & lots of 3D models like this:
http://www.turbosquid.com/FullPreview/Index.cfm/ID/354506
...which is exactly what I look for, but sadly all of these products are non-Poser formats. It may be possible to import them (of course), but it would be great if the model would offer basic "movabilty" features, like the possibility to "open" the case with a dial, just like DAZ's "slimline case" above - and since I don't have any experience with 3D construction programs and/or Poser character/prop creation I'm resistant to buy it, although it is reasonable cheap.
My final try was poserworld.com which usually has virtually every prop imaginable... but no CDs. Pity!
So... does maybe anybody know a Poser model like this and where to get it? Any help is much appreciated & thanks in advance.
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Yeah that slimline one is the best one I can think of offhand..
Sorry you already mentioned the product I mentioned. Just ignore.
This any good. It's free at the moment, but not Poser.
http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_details.aspx?id_product=4610
Did you ever buy the Rainy Day girl's accessory set (for either the original The Girl or the old Millennium Girl, I think). No link, as it isn't in the store any longer, but among the handy goodies is a small bilious pink boombox and one of the old standard-type CD cases. Old enough not to have any D|S materials, so it might need a bit of tweaking even in moderately recent versions of Poser. Here's a link to the promo pic from my Product Library, in case it jogs your memory.
Thanks for your help so far... looks like that I'm rather out of luck.
I don't have the Rainy Day girl’s accessory set and since DAZ wisely a) removes old items from the shop and b) prohibits buying/selling models 2nd Hand... well, what a clever combination.
Anyway, I downloaded the freebie (thanks for the link) and at least it imports properly into Poser. But I need it for a friend (with a record shop) so I couldn't use that because of the commercial purpose.
So I guess I will buy the 3DS item (above) and then try to "open" the case with Hexagon to different angles, as needed. Pretty stupid I guess but I really don't have the skills to turn this item into a posable .cr2, although I guess that it should be possible, granted that it only needs to rotate one piece against the remains. I will also try to copy the material settings from the DAZ slimcase to the freebie parts and see if this works fine... the transparent DAZ case works/looks pretty good.
Thanks a lot, and if anyone (else) has an idea where to search for a proper prop (pun intended) please let me know.
PS: I forgot to mention that (of course) I also tried www.sharecg.com as well. Lots of CD scans there... but nothing 3D.
Hi, i don't know whether this helps But here http://www.daz3d.com/modern-furniture-add-ons they have a dvd player that the tray opens, perhaps you can manipulate this with the cd case and find a suitable solution??? just a thought, plus it's cheap for pc members
Not really, because the article list only mentions "DVD cases" (again), which look like "amaray" cases from the preview.
The ability to open the DVD player tray is nice, but I fear there won't be a CD inside (just kiddin'), and even then it's not the CD but its case that I'm looking for...
But thanks for the link.
ZIPPO has a CD and case that might be what you are looking for ,I don't have a link right off hand but while I'm looking for it someone else might have quicker access to a link ......
OOOOOoooo I found it quicker then I thought !! it isn't set up in a runtime folder but the readme does tell you where to stick things
http://lab108.x0.com/lab108/misc.html
Just scroll down and you will see it
I have to speak up here and take the blame. The decision to remove Rainy Day from the store was mine, and nothing to do with DAZ. It was an old product and I didn't feel it was up to current standards. Nor was it particularly good value for money compared with most of my other packs. I removed several other products at the same time because I prefer to keep my catalog relevant and up to date.
Sorry if it was something you could have used. I had no idea it was one of the few cd cases around. I'll bear it in mind and if I find a pack it can fit into, I'll make another one.
mac
I have to speak up here and take the blame. The decision to remove Rainy Day from the store was mine, and nothing to do with DAZ. It was an old product and I didn't feel it was up to current standards. Nor was it particularly good value for money compared with most of my other packs. I removed several other products at the same time because I prefer to keep my catalog relevant and up to date.
Sorry if it was something you could have used. I had no idea it was one of the few cd cases around. I'll bear it in mind and if I find a pack it can fit into, I'll make another one.
mac
I have a perfect idea for you then if you're up to it. Various audio/video media throughout the years. 8-tracks, records, tapes, cds, vhs, etc as well as cases.
Hmmm... tricky.
I can think of several reasons for me not to do it. The two main reasons are that I don't know much about audio/video equipment, and the copyright issues are a nightmare. It's always possible to invent fake manufacturers names, etc, but design-wise, you can't really get away with much. Even the humble VHS casette is copyrighted.
At some point, I'll be doing a pack of household objects and I'll probably include a cd case in that.
Thanks for the suggestion though!
mac
I'm confused as to how copyright issues come into play over creating 3d models from scratch. This guy has a VHS tape model being sold commercially. Is this something that shouldn't be done? o_O
http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/vhs-tape-3d-model/599073
I'm not a commercial modeler, so I'm genuinely confused. lol :P
There are three basic forms of intellectual property protection and they are all different because they're all designed to protect different types of property.
Copyright is the strongest form of IP protection. It is for protecting creative works. There are restrictions on what can be copyrighted. It has to be of a significant length. You cannot copyright a name. You cannot copyright the title of a work. You cannot copyright a small phrase. You cannot copyright a useful item (ie, a tool such as a hammer, or saw, or screw driver). The purpose of copyright law comes from a time when it was very difficult and expensive to create published works. The goal of copyright is to increase the number of works in the public domain, to benefit society as a whole. The means by which this is accomplished is through giving a limited monopoly to the copyright holder so that they alone control the profits from a published work. Once this limited monopoly expires the work falls into the public domain and society now benefits from it. There are limitations and exceptions to copyright such as fair use which determines when the monopoly protections apply or not. Lately, with the proliferation of corporate owned copyrights, copyright law has been become increasingly perverted so as to not serve its intended goal of increasing works in the public domain. Now the monopoly has become the primary purpose of copyright and instead of facilitating the creation of new works it is often being employed to interfere with the creation of new works. For the most part we have Disney and the Church of Scientology to blame for this. If Mickey Mouse's copyright is about to expire, you can bet they will lobby congressmen to extend copyright terms.
But what do you do if you have a small phrase that you use for a business that you want to protect so nobody else can use it.
This is the next strongest form of IP protection. The trademark. This can be a small phrase, a title (with limitations), a graphic, and now even a colour that are used to protect their use as associated with a trade. This requires an active defence on the part of the trademark holder because unlike copyright which is granted rights until such time as they expire a trademark must be defended against infringement or else it will be lost. This is why companies routinely take advertisements in trade magazines to inform writers that their product name is trademarked and to please treat it as such in their writing "ie, please have your characters say 'pass me a Kleenex brand tissue paper' and not 'hand me a kleenex', because that's totally how real people talk). It's also why in the EUL for products like Photoshop there will be clauses governing the language you are allowed to use about the product. You can't use the word Photoshop as a verb. So instead of saying "I'll photoshop that picture" you have to say "I will use the Photoshop software to digitally manipulate that image". This is because they are trying to prevent the word photoshop from becoming part of the "common language". You cannot trademark common language and if your trademark becomes part of the common language then you lose it. This is how Bayer lost their trademark on Aspirin. The common person began to use the word aspirin simply to mean any pain relief pill. If photoshop became a common use verb (which it pretty much is) then Adobe would lose its trademark. This is also why you cannot trademark phrases or words that are already part of the common use. Lipton tried a few years ago to trademark Basmati rice but was ultimately struck down because people have been using the term basmati rice for centuries, long before Lipton existed. It's also why if I owned a cracker company I couldn't trademark the word crackers because it's part of the common usage. I could, however trademark the word Krakerrz. or another creative spelling of the same word. You can also not trademark a person's name (so I can't trademark John Smith to prevent all other people named John Smith from competing against me in my industry) and you cannot trademark a number (which is why Intel stopped using numbers for the names of their processors).
Now with trademark you only are required to defend it in cases where it is reasonable to expect people to have confusion over the product. Microsoft does not have to sue John Taylor's Windows when John Taylor's Windows is a contractor that sells and installs building windows. No reasonable person would think that John Taylor's business and product is associated with Microsoft in any way. However if John Taylor was designing and selling computer operating systems it would be a completely different story and Microsoft would be well within their rights to sue. What constitutes a reasonable expectation is not firmly set and often comes down to a judge to decide and you will often see companies employing trademark protection as a chilling effect, sueing companies using a term that nobody in their right mind would ever find product confusion over.
Trademarks do not expire until either the company employing it goes out of business or until they become part of the common language.
But what if you have an idea or useful item that you wish to protect, like a hammer, or a screwdriver or a saw. That's where patent law comes into effect. It is the shortest duration of all the protections because it is very vital to technological advancement that inventors are able to build upon the works that came before them. There are restrictions on what can be patented. It has to be a process or invention that has no prior art and it cannot be something that a person would figure out on their own through the normal use of an object. For example, if the hammer had just been invented and was being used to drive nails, I could not then patent the process of using a hammer to knock a hole in a wall because pretty much everyone would have figured out through the normal use of a hammer that you can use it to hit things other than nails. So things like a VHS tape case, which is a useful item, would be covered under patent law.
As with copyright and trademark, patent law has also been seeing much abuse of late in the form of "patent trolls". The United States is very soft on what they will allow to be patented so you can describe a very vague process that could easily apply to many things and then patent it. For the most part it is not up to the patent office to decide what qualifies for a patent protection or not, it is up to the courts. This has caused people to file patents for such vague things as "transmitting and receiving computer information via radio signals" and then claim "I have the patent on WiFi" even though their vague patent includes no schematics or even communication protocols and has nothing in the way of a proof of concept or even a prototype, just a vague idea of a process. Now if these patent trolls actually tried to take a company that manufactures WiFi routers to court they would lose, no doubt about it. But that's not what they do. They find small businesses that use WiFi routers and then sue them (this is actually happening which is why I'm using it as an example). Most small businesses when faced with the court cost of a certain win versus the one time payment of a couple of thousand dollars to make the troll go away will pay off the troll which is why patent trolling has become a very lucrative racket. Lately manufacturers have been getting involved with the defence of their customers who use their products to shut down these patent trolls.
Basically in terms that we could relate to. It would be as if someone filed a patent that said "a process by which computer generated humanoid figures are manipulated in virtual 3D space and animated and posed" (sound familiar) and then started suing everyone who produced a render with Daz Studio for infringing on their patent. They would do this in hopes of shaking down users for easy money (say offer to settle out of court for $200). They wouldn't sue Daz because Daz would have the resources and interest in defending themselves against a clearly invalid patent. But if enough of Daz's customers started getting hit up by these patent trolls then Daz might offer to defend one of them in order to finally terminate this patent troll and stop the harassment of their customers.
So that's a basic run down of intellectual property law, it's uses and abuses.
Sometimes there's interesting cross overs.
For example a VHS tape that has a label on it. The contents recorded on the tape are covered under copyright law. The label is covered under trademark law. The VHS cassette itself is covered under patent law.
So, in this instance, let's say Mac was to model OBJs of the media suggested, somebody could come along and sue him based on the model alone (I'm not talking labels, just the model itself) and claim patent infringement even though the OBJ isn't tangible?
To me, I'd see it no different than lets say his Everyday Cosmetics set. http://www.daz3d.com/everyday-cosmetics
There's a hair dryer in there, and a hairbrush, lipstick, etc, yet somewhere there's probably a patent on those.
Sorry Mac, I'm not trying to calling you out or push the issue, I just know your store to have room filler. LOL
Thanks for the lengthy, easy to understand post, btw, even had some chuckles in there. :P Copyright law for me reads like Japanese stereo instructions normally. >.<</p>
I've worked in the entertainment industry for over 20 years so I've had to deal with all sorts of issues concerning IP law over the course of my career.
Does the same still hold true for all 3d models (not being able to be sued), even if the copyright is still in effect?
Usually when it comes to a 3D model what comes into effect is trademark law.
.OBJ as a file format is/was patented (I don't know when it was patented and if the patent has expired yet) but creating an .OBJ file of a patented thing such as say a Gizmotronic Gizmometre would not be a violation of patent law any more than drawing a picture of a Gizmotronic Gizmometre would be violation of patent law or taking a picture of it would be.
Now what it could be depending on how the model was used is a violation of trademark law. If I called my model a Gizmometre then I could end up running afoul of Gizmotronic's trademark on the word Gizmometre.
This is why you will sometimes see cute names applied to models that are clearly existing products but used to skirt issues of trademark violation. For example, in the game Interstate '76, the cars were all modelled after real life cars of that era but the names of the model and manufacturers were changed.
The '69 Chevrolet Camero became the '69 Corcheval Cavera to avoid any possible trademark issues GMC might have with them using the Chevy and Camera trademarks. It actually ended up adding an element of fun to the game as car enthusiasts got to play "identify the real world counterpart of the in game model".
God I miss Internstate '76, that was one hell of a good game.
You see this with all sorts of 3D models, particularly firearms and such.
I guess that's where my confusion sets in, as I've seen things both for sale and free, modeled after something that's real (let's say SW .38 Special), and the 3D model will actually be called a SW .38 Special. Is this because either a) nobody's noticed, or b) the modeler is considered too small time for SW to give a damn?
Usually the later. An amateur modeller giving away a freebee is likely to never even show up on their radar.
Gotchya. Thanks again for the info, and for your patience. :D
Well, in the case of the Cosmetics pack, nothing in it is based on a specific object or design. The hairdryer and lipstick are generic shapes which resemble real world items because that basic shape is common to them all. Any 3d object, such as a dress or a pair of pants, has something in common with a real dress or pants. That doesn't mean it infringes a copyright. But if you copy an Armani dress and put an Armani label on it, you might find yourself in court.
But as I said before, apart from copyright issues, I know little or nothing about audio/video equipment, so I wouldn't tackle it anyway.
mac
One thing to remember when discussing PA products and copyright is that DAZ themselves are pretty hard on PAs. When submitting a product, we have to state that all models are our own work and that no copyrights have been infringed, (including textures, images, etc). Often DAZ will ask for a change in a model based on possible issues.
I remember years ago submitting a pack with dvds in it. One of the dvd covers was a fictional movie called H..A.L.O, which stood for High Altitude, Low Opening. (A phrase used by the British SAS for parachute jumps over enemy territory). What I didn't know at the time is that there's a game called HALO, and DAZ refused the pack until I removed that cover and did a new one.
I know DAZ have frequently refused cars and other products because of potential violations.
mac
I also forgot to point out you cannot copyright an idea.
You will often hear people tell you an idea they have for a story and then say "the idea is copyrighted to me so don't steal it". Yeah, it's not. An idea cannot be copyrighted, only the explicit expression of an idea can. You've all no doubt heard the saying "there are only 8 stories" and for the most part this is basically true. Most of human history has been retelling the same stories with characters and places and things shuffled around a bit.
So I could write a story about a team of 4 scientists who went into outer space where their space ship was subjected to strange radiation which mutated the crew and gave them super powers. It would not be copyright violation. Now if I were to have one of them become stretchy, another one turn into a human torch, one become invisible and the other a hulking behemoth of incredible strength I'd be guilty of copyright violation. One is simply an idea, the other is an explicit expression of an idea. Now when that line is crossed can sometimes be very blurry which is why it sometimes comes down to courts to decide when the explicit expression of an idea has been infringed upon. It can sometimes be a good idea to really check yourself when writing a story because corporations like to employ what is known as a "chilling effect". A chilling effect is used to basically silence competition. It is when lawsuits or threats of lawsuits for copyright violation where no violation has taken place are used by a company against another party to effectively silence them. The companies know there was no violation of copyright and that a court ruling will not go in their favour but will sue anyway because they know the defending party does not have the resources to mount a defence against a company of their size. If you work in the entertainment industry you will see the chilling effect being applied often. When it really becomes interesting is when a corporation applying a chilling effect suddenly finds itself in a situation where it has no choice but to apply it against another similarly sized entity. It is like seeing a school yard bully pick on all the smaller kids mouthing off to a bigger kid who is going to give him what is coming.
A good example of this would be Mattel Vs. MCA Records. Mattel was notorious for employing the chilling effect against anyone using the name Barbie in ways they did not like. They would threaten to sue magazines and websites that published unfavourable reviews of Barbie products claiming by posting photos of their products they were violating the copyrights of Barbie's appearance and the trademarks on Barbie's name. They were very successful at silencing all negative mentions of their product because they were a big corporation and the entities they were going after were much smaller. Then along came a goofy pop band called Aqua who wrote a song called "Barbie Girl" and Mattel sued them for trademark and copyright violations. Mattel lost and precedence was set. Smaller publications were able to site that precedence when Mattel tried to silence them.
Mattel never had a case against any of these entities because of a part of copyright law called "fair use".
What fair use is, is limitations and exemptions on the protections offered by copyright. There are times you can use copyrighted materials without such use being a violation of copyright law.
Reviews is on such example. If I am reviewing a movie I would be able to show a clip from that movie if that clip was necessary to the review. For example say I was talking about the poor production values in a movie I could show a clip where the boom microphone was in shot and the light stand was visible and a teamster was clearly seen in the background sitting at the craft service table stuffing doughnuts down his gaping maw and talking on his cell phone despite the fact this movie was set during the Napoleonic Wars. Not a violation of the movie's copyright.
Parody is another such example. Parody is covered under fair use BUT the parody must be a parody of the work it is copying. The Estate of Roy Orbison Vs. 2 Live Crew is an example. 2 Live Crew's use of the sampled bass line from the song Pretty Woman was done as a parody of the Orbison actual song itself. If they had used the bass line from pretty woman but instead written a song about Kraft processed cheese it would not have been a parody of the song Pretty Woman but about Kraft processed cheese and thus would not have been fair use.
Those are just two examples where fair use is allowed and there are many more areas where you can employ fair use. It is not an expressly written part of the copyright law and is left for the courts to decide. But before you start taking from other works and claiming fair use you must keep in mind fair use is an affirmative defence, meaning the burden to prove the use is covered under fair use falls upon the defence. You can't just say "fair use" and walk away. You have to be able to show precedence. This is why precedence setting cases are important because they give you an instance where fair use applies or where it does not.
Sorry for my late reply (was off home for some time for work) and thanks for your link.
It will work for my purpose, although it is pretty low-res - if you open the case, the "round" circle to hold the outer shape of the disc is rather octogonal...
But I first only need it slightly opened, so it will work for now. In the long term I will probably buy the 3DS model and try to squeeze/edit it in Hexagon. I hope I will be able to apply/copy the materials and shader/node settings from the DAZ item.
OOOOOoooo I found it quicker then I thought !! it isn’t set up in a runtime folder but the readme does tell you where to stick things
http://lab108.x0.com/lab108/misc.html
Just scroll down and you will see it
You will need to either edit the pp2 file or link to the textures manually because Zippo has all of his textures incorrectly referenced.
The United States is very soft on what they will allow to be patented so you can describe a very vague process that could easily apply to many things and then patent it. For the most part it is not up to the patent office to decide what qualifies for a patent protection or not, it is up to the courts. This has caused people to file patents for such vague things as “transmitting and receiving computer information via radio signals” and then claim “I have the patent on WiFi” even though their vague patent includes no schematics or even communication protocols and has nothing in the way of a proof of concept or even a prototype, just a vague idea of a process.
Sad but true. And one of the (most minor) results is that it's punditfuel for the conspiracy kooks because the US patent office website or whatever lists weather control, earthquake, and mind-control machines (so the kooks see this as proof that they exist)
Oh, BTW, not to derail the topic, but I once saw a picture of the HAARP (gubment weather control machine in Alaska-- not as good as SCALAR, which is Russia's equivalent-- and unlike HAARP, doesn't appear to be based even loosely on a real device)
on some conspiracy kook site. See, the weather control machine is also the earthquake machine, mind-control broadcaster, death ray, continental electronic jammer, and Startrek-esque forcefield generator. (Oh, it does all of this through mystical electromagnetic pulses BTW. You know, the same part of the electromagnetic spectrum that the soul-- including ghosts-- and including chi are composed of >_>. Oh, and mother earth's chi meridians (pressure points) cause spontaneous human combustion. Don't forget that.) At any rate, I saw a diagram on the kook sites of the earthquake machine, which they claim can cause earthquakes even on the opposite side of the planet and at any point by shooting EMPs into tectonic faults. (Even if no faults exist on the site >_>)
Wanna know what the best part is? The part of the device that penetrates into the ground bore an AWFULLY close resemblance to Galactus's planet sucking device XD
Oh, well, patent entry = proof that gubment weather control machine exists is still far less stupid than "extraterrestrials kidnapped me just so they could anal probe me and then return me to my natural habitat" or the far dumber "artifacts *pixelation, etc.* over news reporter's face = proof that they're an evil blood-sucking, shape-shifting reptilian alien in disguise." Oh, and according to them, Dubya is one as well. I'm not making this up.
Usually the later. An amateur modeller giving away a freebee is likely to never even show up on their radar.
I've seen 3D models of actual IP material, such as anime and cartoon characters, for sale on Turbosquid and other sites, despite a clear lack of affiliation or approval from the IP holders...
I remember seeing a patent diagram for a "faster than light" spacecraft engine. It was a vaguely cylindrical drawing labelled "engine containment" with a small port on it and a crude drawing of a laser emitter shining into it labelled "control laser system".
So a tube with a hole in it and a laser pointer is all you need to make a spaceship go faster than light.
Stuff like that should not be patentable.
As for the aliens. They keep saying they're anal probing me for science but the last one kept stroking my hair and I heard him whisper "oh god, you're pretty like a girl". I'm not certain, but I think we're being duped.