Does anyone have an opinion here on this? Would anyone be interested in something like this to begin with? I know this show wasn't particularly popular. I thought it was by far the best of all the series. edited for spelling

Message edited on: 01/21/2006 13:58

What was the show? Enterprise? Copyrighted stuff can`t be sold (though some is at times). It would probably be quite popular as a free item for fans of the show.

Not on this site, but I'm sure someone can find a home for it. Say Vanishing Point, maybe? Or what about SciFi 3d, they have all sorts of Trek models. Looks to be high quality, you should have no problem giving it away (can't legally sell it)provided all the usual non-commercial-use-only restrictions apply.

Message edited on: 01/21/2006 14:17

COME ON, dont be silly. If Renderosity can SELL "Voyager Knights" with a straight face, a deck from ENTERPRISE should be perfectly ok, too. Just rename it into something like "Spaceship interior" and everythings fine. Personally, I dont like people to make profit from fanart in general, but it would be ridicoulus to allow one StarTrek iten but not the other. stahlratte

As far as I know, if it doesn't include any trademarked names or symbols or anything it should be ok.

Bandolin - sent you an IM. All Details in that.

It's a fantastic model! I would have definately been very interested, I too think it was the best of all the ST series (hence my pen name) :)

What! You're not a Musketeer?!

Nope, not a Musketeer, a space dog! ^_^

Who, IRC, was named for a Musketeer. Cool!

Porthos is a space beagle Aramis is a cologne that leaves Athos and Dartagnan. But of all those characters created by that author they all pale in comparison to Edmund Dantes. I just love literary name dropping

bandolin, I see several issue at work here. I would have been wanting this although I would never have associated it with any copyright protected work of art. I only now have a vague sense of with what it might be associated.

It can not be said that my purchase is dependent on a perceived association. I am not aware of a similar product sold by the copyright owner and probably would not have bought from them anyway, this does not support the claim that there was a diversion of sales. Since you product does not claim to be "official" so-end-so it is hard to image that people interested in collecting or owning "official" liscenced merchandise would be diverted to your product.

For a claim from a copyright owner to be legitimate some or several criteria must be met, mainly real damages since real damages are at the heart of civil law, even wrongful death cases, although on limited occasion the pain and suffering of individuals has been recognized as quantifiable damages.

Reasonably the copyright owner should demonstrate one or more of the following:

1. loss of income due to product confusion, namely they sell a substantially similar derivative (a Poser formated scene) from which you are diverting sales with your product.

2. you are flooding the market with material of negligible value aside from association with their copyright material (no one would buy your product if it were not associated with whatever it is) and that this action on your part is causing a dilution of worth by depressing prices with pricing based on lesser capital investment and advertising costs, lowering the prestige of their product thus depressing prices, or by depressing the value of potential lisensing of their product.

3. Your product causes injury to reputation that effect sales or the value of liscening in that your product denigrates the copyright material or undermines the value of liscenced products by creating a sense of inferior quality in the minds of consumers.

That said, the higher your profile your sales the more likely you will be pursued and the case is invariably decided in favor of the richest party.

I myself would like it more if it was zero-G.

I wonder if all those Blanik high heels in the MP are properl liscenced?

Heh. For a while, Babylon 5 models were all that rage on the Lightwave sites. I remember seeing all sorts of stuff. They gave those away free, though.

Not to beat the topic up, but giving away or selling makes no difference. Look at the File Swapping of Music. You violate, you are responsible. Renderosity would be bankrupted in a day if any of the holders of Copyrighted, Trademark, etc... came a calling. The Music industry and Movie Industry has set the standard. There is no excuse for violating Copyright or Trademark.

to be honest, after all the 'support' Paramount/UPN gave the show (tongue firmly in cheek)..;) I don't know about sales, but you can give it away. Land sakes, if they removed all the Star-Trek-related material off the web, all that would be left would be sports, prawnography, and 'rosity..;)
and Porthos...no cheese!
To be honest, there was a lot of good Bab 5 stuff out there for awhile, but almost all of them seem to be dead links (I got while the getting was good). Tony01701 has a whole site devoted to Star Trek stuff, including much of the bridge, etc. Haven't heard anything happen to him.
I like it..though I'm wondering if the corridors were wider, but from the look of things, you've looked more closely than I..there was a good site out there that had a 'virtual tour' of the bridge, armory, etc., you could pan, tilt, zoom, etc., I wish to #$%^ I had saved the URL..

iv'e watched many scifi shows for years, as far as i'm concerned i would never be able to look at that and say it was definitly one from such and such show...lol it just looks like any ole space ship coridor to me. great prop. netta

I ditto netta's post. It looked like the interior of a spaceship....could be any spaceship. I don't see any logos or names. I'm not into the whole 3D SciFi, but it looks like a nice spaceship interior. Not being able to sell it here would be like someone looking at the shape of a car or piece of funiture and saying the same thing.

I like it

I actually thought it looked like the scene from JasonX lol. It's pretty cool though. I can't see why you couldn't just name it "my hallway" or something and put "any similarities to real or imagined hallways is purely coincidental" lol.

Actually... There is no trademark or copyright covering that specific interior as presented. It's perfectly fine to sell or give away. However if, in the process of doing so, you use, in any way, a trademark (which this specific case would involve) to promote it -- inclusive of leading people to say "well, it's really this, but we're just calling it that" -- then you are in violation of the TOS and could likely place yourself in a difficult and untenable position legally. Not because of the model. Because of the way you were selling/giving it away. Vanishingpoint is an excellent place, and I'd suggest sellling through them, as they already have a good strong reputation for this sort of work. And I say this despite running my own store, lol. Oy. Someday I'll get this right. It looks well done. MY particular concerns would be polycount and mapping of it. Does it have enough material zones, and can I do efficient P6 lighting set ups that would really give it some snap. "Not being able to sell it here would be like someone looking at the shape of a car or piece of funiture and saying the same thing." Hi hon -- was about to hit reply and caught this... Actually, there are some automobiles and pieces of furniture that would automatically be covered under trademark becuase they themselves are. The VW New Beetle, for example, which ahs a specific and disticntive shape that has been registered, and some specific custom pieces of furniture.

For me looks as a normal corridor, scifi or not. I doubt that any can claim copyright of this design.

Message edited on: 01/22/2006 03:39

Aside from the color of the walls, my first guess would have been the corridor Dave jogs in, in 2001. As our best current sage said, "Paranoia strikes deep. Into your life it will creep...." M

Hi bandolin, I replied to your post in the Copyright forum. Karen

@momodot Are you a lawyer? I normally don't understand legalese but oddly I understood most of your post, thank you. @pakled startrek.com, click on enterprise and at the bottom of the page is the virtual tour. I used it alot. However, Paramount will be taking down the site by this summer. Apparently, there are no new ST series on the drawing board. Paramount feels they have over saturated the need for this franchise. Unfortunately, karen1573 has made it perfectly clear what 'rosity's position is on this matter and I will not be able to distribute this here, free or otherwise.

You can not use the name of any shows when describing this ship hallway...as long as you do that you will not be breaking any copyright laws....Rendo sales many products simular to many Movie and TV props including likeness of movie stars but the vendor uses different names.As for the free stuff section you can find Star Trek,Star Wars,Aliens and Many other stuff. So if you want to give me this prop just let me know and I'll send you my e-mail...LOL...

Voyager Knights is sold here and it is clearly based on 7 of 9. She even looks like Jerri Ryan. It also has a borg implant eyepiece included! I can't see why you can't sell this using a different title, like "Space Station Passageway" or something similar!

The reason is that this is an exact reprodution of an Enterprise hallway. I don't know about Voyager Knights, or whether it is a vioaltion or not. As much as it looks like Jeri Ryan, and her Voyager character, it could be that it just doens't come close enough to be a violation. Karen would be better qualified to give an answer about that than I am.

"The reason is that this is an exact reproduction of an Enterprise hallway" OKAY...If that's the reason then he could just change the colors of the interior to give it a different look.

ynsaen is correct. Copyright applies to the footage from the TV program. If you create something from scratch that merely looks like a scene from it, there is no way you are anything remotely like infringing copyright. However, if you use the name of the TV show, you breach trademark. One must be careful not to mix these two up.

ynsaen and Phantast are entirely correct. This is a matter of Trade Mark not copyright. So the bottom line is do you use words or image that are close enough to the trademarked words or images to be an infringement.

I know celebrities have an ownership of their recognizable likeness through the Right of Publicity, that is the ownership of the commercial value of your celebrity. Does this apply to every image in a work of art? To non-trademarked images occurring in a work of art? To go back to copyright, I don't know the legal term for it but there is also the matter of how many ways a space corridor can be conceived. A copyright holder must prove a unique formulation of words since some things can only be stated in a limited number of ways... "Reconstruction brought a tidal wave of change throught the South" can not be copyrighted any more than "It works!" can be trademarked.

In Canada Lego recently lost a major litigation against a look-alike product I believe on the basis that functional aspects of design to not constitute look-and-feel. Where would Microsoft be today if it weren't for that? Also in Canada the retailer Canadian Tire lost in court against the website Sucky Tire because there was inadequate evidence of confusion to the consumer. As the defendant stated, "I did not know that 'sucky' was generally considered synonymous with 'Canadian'".

Re. the transformitive use of protected materials: In Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. Saderup,3 the defendant, an artist, sold lithographs and T-shirts bearing a likeness of the Three Stooges reproduced from a charcoal drawing he had made. As an initial matter, the Court determined that because Saderup's drawing was an 'expressive' work, and not simply an advertisement or endorsement of a product, it was entitled to a higher level of First Amendment protection.

I can quote that passage due to the Fair Use provisions of copyright permitting the republication of portions of a work for journalistic and educational uses :)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/05/13/MN273668.DTL is interesting.

The reason this is important to me is that we would have lost probably half the great art in the world, Renaissance copies, 20th collage, folk art, etc. if society before the 20th century had shared the modern and increasingly unreasonable subjugation of the "natural" rights of the artist to more and more restrictive and absurd commercial property rights. Talk about the need for torte reform :)

I have done significant and even lucrative work in other media. People have asked if I worry about being infringed, my response has always been that if someone can do it better than I guess it is better, right? The market decides. On the commercial end, I expect those I work with to honor our contracts, that is all. I have included bilateral no-compete clauses so that during a certain interval they can not take my creative ideas to have them be executed cheaper by someone else, but that is fair given they are asking me to sign a no-compete to not deliver substantially similar work to others during the same interval.

I can never figure out how the powers that be can mobilize the proles to defend corprate property rights... if I leave a couple of grand US dollars out on my own lawn I have no legal recourse if someone takes it yet the satelite company can beam signals right through my house and the courts will enforce the ban on my doing what I will in my own home with these electromagnet rays that have been put in my home without my conscent. If the satelite company does want me watching the lawn bowling channel it should be up to them to beef up their encryption. For the record I do not watch TV which maybe why I don't recognize this corridor.

I think if you sell this hallway as a "Star Ship Corridor" you are ethically and legally okay.

Attached Link: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1014&Itemid=89&nsub=

Yes, it was a landmark decision, here is the link to the article.

"celebrities have an ownership of their recognizable likeness through the Right of Publicity" An instance where there is one law for the rich. But in practice, if you yourself happen to look exactly like a celebrity (and there are people who do) the celebrity can't sue you to force you to have plastic surgery. There are people who make a living from turning up at parties looking exactly like (insert name of movie star here).

An instance where there is one law for the rich. But in practice, if you yourself happen to look exactly like a celebrity (and there are people who do) the celebrity can't sue you to force you to have plastic surgery. There are people who make a living from turning up at parties looking exactly like (insert name of movie star here). Recently Wilford Brimley sued a look alike to prevent him from getting acting work.

eeeek! that Brimley dude is one of the most frightening persons I have ever seen on screen. My whole family is practically phobic about running into him at an airport or something. Just talking about him makes my blood run cold. I wish that guy could get an injunction against Brimley.