Quote - Fair enough:  I realise that this is getting a bit repetitive;  everyone who didn't previously understand the meaning of the word "catalepsy" may well be getting there by now...  

On the other hand, kuroyume0161's last post  (not catalepsy-inducing) missed the point by a country mile - and then the rest.   If there's an American guitar called a "GenderBender", or whatever, and a Japanese guitar-maker produces a "GendaBenda", I'd say that the US manufacturer does have a potential case (this works just as well, the other way around, I should point out, where the Japanese company is the aggrieved party).    Where the "knock-off" tends not to be pursued, of course, is where the "knock-off" is actually as good as, even better than, the original..   That's never going to happen in the case of Turbosquid models, or any equivalents.   Nobody who has been allotted a zillion squid to buy helicopter gunships is going to be stupid enough to think that what is on sale at Turbosquid is the genuine article.   Well, maybe some of Mugabe's cronies, but no-one else.

Knockoffs are actually more legitable than 3D representations - which is my point.  Only recently have Gibson and Fender started trying to pursue legal trademark protection of their designs - it only took 50+ years (guitarists are way too laid-back).  And they are indeed going after the 'as good as or better' companies (like PRS).

I'm sure that the 3D representations will be targetted eventually as well.  This is all good mega-corp business - snuff out the puny competitors and then charge an arm, leg, first-born for licensing with strict limitations and lots of lawyers and paperwork.

This is the problem.  The law is blind - ridiculously blind.  It is analogous to the 18 y/o dating a 17 y/o and being charged with 'sex with a minor' (and so on).  Laws are black and white and need to be very wide swaths of grey at times.  I can see going after other large companies profitting from a company's designs - I can't see going after a child who downloaded a few songs online like she was the CEO of Enron or suing a poor hard-working Korean couple for millions because of a pair of pants - get it...yet?

Link

Link

Attached Link: http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/aboutus/site_terms.html#copyright

Nruddock, I agree about Jane's to an extent. Certain items such as advanced electronics/avionics/jamming devices are mentioned in trade publications, but their functionality and technology is covered by ITAR since it involves data crucial to national security. As for plastic models, I'm curious to see what may happen, since CMM (Coordinate Measuring Machine) machines are becoming more economical. One could, theoretically, trace the curves and datum lines of an aircraft, scale it, and make a mesh, which could be ran through CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) for aerodynamic analysis. A competing company or country can use this data to produce an aircraft comparable to the plastic model. As for Lockheed, I'm not sure what is their intent for the C&D. It could be a reputation thing, it could be for economic reasons. Since I don't work for Lockheed, I can't answer for them. As for Boeing, I'm not aware of any C&D letters, but I found this at the Boeing Corporate website: Trademarks and Service Marks Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, McDonnell, Douglas, North American Aviation, their distinctive airplane liveries, logos and product markings, and the products and services described in this Site (except those belonging to Boeing suppliers or licensors), are among the trademarks, service marks or registered trademarks owned by Boeing, and may not be copied, imitated or used, in whole or in part, without the prior written permission of Boeing. In addition, all page headers, custom graphics, button icons, and scripts are service marks, trademarks, and/or trade dress owned by Boeing, and may not be copied, imitated, or used, in whole or in part, without the prior written permission of Boeing. All other trademarks, registered trademarks, product names and company names or logos mentioned herein are the property of their respective owners, and may not be copied, imitated or used, in whole or in part without the prior written permission of such respective owners. Any request for grant of a license to use Boeing marks is subject to prior approval, and should be addressed to the Boeing Trademark Management Group at: trademarks@boeing.com.

Well here's your problem, if you made model which resembles their product and given away for free, they are probably not going to say anything about it. But if you actually sell them for commercial purpose (which is the keyword) without informing them first or made a contract with them regarding its designes, sooner or later you will be served with a court order.

I've seen lots of free firearms models in the freebies section and they look exactly like Heckler & Koch firearms, it's been there for years and so far they have not been taken down due to manufacturer's complaint.

Looks like I'm back although I have much better things to do... :(

GhostWolf: That's the entire point.  If you like, go ask Lockheed how much they want you to pay to license the use of one of their designs in a 3D model.  I'll guess it at $100,000 per anum (or some similar per-usage scheme).  Yeah, I can afford that.  As noted, most of the plastic scale model companies can barely afford that.

Again - black and white.  A small individual business needs to plonk out just as much as some major corporation or movie studio - there are no advantages or levels.  Either the enterprise dries up (no more 3D models except of trees and horses) or some major corporation steps in to fill the gap (wonderful) and charges major corporation prices.  It is a win-win-win situation for Lockheed and a lose-lose-lose-lose situation for these 3D modelers.  And they don't even get public government money.... Sad, sad, sad.

The Bell UH1 is a prime example of a major problem.  It is associated with several wars - Korea and Vietnam to name two.  With a restriction on selling quality 3D representations, only bankrolls can afford to use them in any related way - or every CG person wanting to use one in a render or animation will have to model it him/her self.  I'm sorry, what security breach is caused by a representation of a 50 y/o helicopter again?

I suggest that any 3D modeler that works for or is contracted out by companies like Lockheed start charging hundreds of thousands of dollars for their work - trademark your individual modeling technique and request a license for the contractual use of it! ;P

@Starkdog
The good CFD software is also protected by the same regulations.
Plastic models just won't give anything beyond the rough shape, no information about the materials used, no information about the computer controlled dohickies that adjust the wing shape.
I suspect these companies have taken note of the merchandiing revenues achieved by film tie-ins (i.e StarWars) and are dreaming big $$$ (or at least enough to cover the lawyer bills for doing so).

@kuroyume0161
Lawmakers always try to write (and represent) laws as black and white, they rarely succeed.
When they do, it almost always results in injustices like the one you used as an example.
People are quite capable of dealing with grey areas, but it's always difficult to write down a method for handling them (e.g. the T.O.S. here)

What's so funny is that israel modified our superb tank the centurion so many diff way's, and even some yank tank's but no one complained.
If you look at F14 AND F15 they were based on our fighter jet even first full metalic in certain areas, though we gave up advanced jet aircraft desgn in the 50's, so thier having a laugh banning 3d model's of thier stuff.
Soon someone will say hold on they can bad a 3d model of thier plane infringes copyright but thier planes killed our men women, children and baby's.
So if thier not carefull they my find people taking them to court because of what thier military planes did, and what this comes down to is america is panaking even the goverment, as in 9 years china will be the world's greatest super power.
That's the rub the american companies are panaking as chinese science are comming up with superb military invention's, so look for more american companie's banning 3d stuff soon.
It's getting a joke and id love to see what lockheed will do if a chinese modeler makes 3d planes of thiers and are sold on a chinese web site, i can imagine the chinese quaking in thier boot's at some american company threaten them.

The essential, defining characteristic of a successful corporation is articulated in Fred Saberhagen's Berserker series. We are prey.

M

With you there Mickma.

Modelling or texturing anything from the real world will infringe someones copyright or trademark, even the smallest detail like the design of a dustbin or piece of graffit. 

Also most of these hassles don't come directly from the companys either, but from lawyers who've got bored chasing ambulances. Even if you comply these lawyers will often keep on hoping to make a few quick bucks. 

If you infringe a major companys - you get a C&D, your hosting co gets some grief and you have to pull stuff or be closed down. But if that company infringes you - then you have no chance because  they know you can't afford the legal fees.

You can't post a photo of the effiel tower here, because of this Lockheed thing will they pull photos of aircraft from here, or close down places like airliners.net ?

Overall it's all very silly and mostly related to greed and thats why I think the whole issue of copyrights needs to be looked at again by those who make the rules,  both to protect the IP holder and to allow things such as a greater level of fair use by artists etc etc.  

Increasing pressure on those that "infringe" doesn't work either it just forces things underground and that only makes things like warez more prevelant.

It would be foolish to glorify warez, which are for the most part the product of less than admirable ends, but a good deal of the subversion of intellectual property, and corporate property generally, is driven by a simple cultural dogma which I happen to share. The idea of property is a necessary evil that our culture has deified.

M

Quote - Someone in a blacklisted country could procure the 3D model and reverse-engineer it, and it could compromise national security.

This made my morning. Just the thought that any or our 3d models could be a threat to national security is hilarious. Thanks. :)

I mean, really- does anyone actually believe that a country like Iran could purchase my Blackhawk Helicopter model and figure out how the real helicopter works? All they would have is a shell- my model doesn't even include an engine!

Plus, if blacklisted countries want to see what US vehicles look like, all they have to do is turn on CNN or Al-Jazeera. The better-off countries may even be able to pick up the Military Channel on their satellite TV's. lol

*I suggest that any 3D modeler that works for or is contracted out by companies like Lockheed start charging hundreds of thousands of dollars for their work - trademark your individual modeling technique and request a license for the contractual use of it! ;P

*Nice idea, but it wouldn't work.   The contract would stipulate that Lockheed (or whichever other company) owned the intellectual rights to everything that was associated with the contract.  

H&K, I've always assumed, is based in Germany, but it was owned by BAE (formerly British Aerospace) and I am not sure if it is still.   H&K's in-house superior submachine-gun is what you will see in numbers at British airports, or around the Houses of Parliament.   When the British Army adopted the SA-80 automatic rifle and wished it hadn't, it was H&K which was invited to turn the rifle into a decent weapon.   The second version is reputed to be a vastly superior firearm (better than the standard US Army rifle, actually), but the point here is that it really doesn't look that different from the hopeless first version.    Knowing what the thing looks like gives you no indication of the changes that H&K made.   I think that that pretty well summarises what I have been saying here. 

True.  Contractual agreements are the key (again with the lawyers - those sharks!).  When I wrote some plugins for a stage production company two years ago, they stipulated that they wanted the source with the plugins and documentation - no problem from me - but I stipulated that I didn't want any restrictions on code reuse for other commercial (or non) endeavors.  Mutual benefit and no strings attached (no NDAs either - yay!). :)

Just a quick thought... any bit of hardware developed by a major corporation in the past, what - 15 years(?) already has an existing, super-accurate 3D mesh: the one they used to actually produce the hardware.

So, who knows? Maybe Lockheed-Martin has decided they can make some extra $$ by stripping out most of the interior details, and Poserizing their meshes?

Could happen! :)

(Yeah, right)

if they made a 3d model of a SA80 based on a company wireframe the barrel would have worse bends than Vikis elbows :)

Can I use your models to do comercial renders now?(Questions a buyer may ask). Lockheed, Boeing and the others have enough money to bury most of use in court costs for the rest of our lives. If the models copywrites are not good enough for Turbo Squid then they weren't good enough for their customers. I suppose there are thousands of models of the same crafts floating around out there for sale in the same position you are. Now granted most of us are not going to use your models for any multi-million dollar projects, but just the same shouldn't your readme say for private use only so the customer doesn't get burned? Or do you think Turbo Squid is just picking on you? If for some reason I used a VP heli model and made millions with it and got sued by one of those companies. I'd come after you or the broker. If the readme said for comercial use and my use was within the readme guide lines. Sorry, that's the hard facts and if your readme said for private use only, then it's worthless for comercial use. Except that you're using them for comercial purposes yourself. They own the likeness of their machines period(like it or not). As long as you sell them without their express permission they might come and shut you down and I would think the buyer who bought it too. You either want to keep takeing that chance or you don't. It may not be them that comes after you. They may have given permission to somebody else already and they don't want the competition. You should ask them for permission. If they don't give it except that and go on.

If you'd like to translate that into a known language, I'd be delighted to respond.

Ditto Jugoth ... the most irritating thing about all of these copyright / patent
clampdowns is that China doesn't give a damn.  Big American and Euro companies
are busily destroying small American and Euro companies, while China cheerfully
knocks off everything from music to movies to machine guns.

Even more irritating is the Palestinian Mickey Mouse suicide bomber 
character.  It's a near-perfect knockoff of Mickey, but Disney hasn't
protested publicly or sued.    If anyone dared to make a pro-Western
use of Mickey, they'd be bankrupted in a Hollywood millisecond. 
We have to assume, by its behavior, that Disney approves of Hamas 
more than it approves of America.

In other words, "When fair use is outlawed, only outlaws will copy."

actually he's dead.

he was executed live...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6257594.stm

A Palestinian TV station has killed off a controversial Mickey Mouse lookalike that critics said was spreading anti-US and anti-Israeli messages to children.

Can I use your models to do comercial renders now? Yep - in the same way you can use the daz blackhawk, 3dc jaguar cars, or the F-16 as sold here.

shouldn't your readme say for private use only so the customer doesn't get burned? Nope. Why should it ?

If I thought that buying something, or using a freebie, could cause me a serious problem, I'd check it out 1st.

Do you think Turbo Squid is just picking on you?
It's nothing personal. Lockheed and other companys are getting tough on a lot of folks not just in the 3d world.

I'd come after you or the broker.
You'd be welcome to try. Thats not a offensive or rude comment, its because this model (as an example) was made by 2 people from different countrys. Each of which have different laws regarding consumer protection and copyrights.

If a brokerage wanted to be awkward they could easily include a caveat in the licence agreement limiting any loss or damage to the original purchase price. Thats what film processing shops do to avoid being sued for the commerical value of a film.

they might come and shut you down
Yep they could, but they could also (using the example above) try to shut down daz or here as well under the same grounds.

Also consider the very nature of selling Poser models online. These are intangabile products sold in a virtual environment. Say Lockheed shut down a store by hassling the hosting company, within 24 hours you could be back up and running again with a new host or url. If the owner was being hassled they just assign the rights to someone else. For example when poser pros had copyight hassles they sold to daz. 

Plus Ockham is right if a US/European company doesn't supply it then a Chinese compnay will and normally less legally as well.

and I would think the buyer who bought it too.
Why would they ? Theres no money in hassling the little guy.

keep takeing that chance or you don't.
I'm happy to take and so are many other stores. If daz thought their blackhawk or VW would get them closed down they'd have pulled it years ago. Now it's part of the PC club pack. 

Khai - an evil mickey mouse - that sounds fun :)

We all know there is tons of models of cars and planes in various market places and they accept them. It seems doubtful that it would even be worth while for the origanal manufacturer to go around stepping on little people. Mp3's went unchecked for a long time until the day finally came. Not to say you can't still download pirate music anymore. They handled it by making an example out of a few folks(even some little kids got hassled). This gets the message out and keeps the honest honest. The true pirate is going to keep on doing it. A law can be made, but that doesn't mean it's easy to enforce. I'm sure Lockheed and Boeing could reach out and touch you if they want too. Will they want too? Who knows?

 

I'm sure Lockheed and Boeing could reach out and touch you if they want too. Yep - they could. If they did then I'm sure lots of other stores would get whacked as well.  

While it would be annoying fora store and unfair for customers to lose the chance to get these models, it wouldn't lead to the closure of any stores because most stores have such a diverise range of products. Looking tonight at VP I see 679 products - and theres probably 10 helis tops. Plus it wouldn't take long to make something new.  
  
This gets the message out and keeps the honest honestNot really - it's a scare tactic thats all. Doesn't stop anyone, they'll switch to systems like P2P where tracking downloaders is difficult.  Ask anyone around you - I bet many of your friends are like mine and download movies or music. 

Interestingly why some people pirate is changing, some folks now download stuff to try it before buying.  

Turbo Squid already did get whacked from what I'm reading. If you can find a legal loop hole then by all means use it. There is always going to be the big bull of the woods scenario though. If you have enough power you can make it happen anyways. Have fun! 

It's freaking war machines were talking about.  So, by the reasoning that they are within their rights to protect the image of their product and company, what if one of these companies objects to, for example,  the New York times running a picture form Iraq that shows one of their war machines in a less than favourable light?  That''ll be great when the media can't cover a war because all of the soldier's weapons, uniforms and vehicles are copyrighted designs.  Bell should've tried that in Vietnam, they could've kept the whole war off of TV.

Quote - and I would think the buyer who bought it too.
Why would they ? Theres no money in hassling the little guy.

That hasn't stopped the RIAA

Quote -
The Bell UH1 is a prime example of a major problem.  It is associated with several wars - Korea and Vietnam to name two.  With a restriction on selling quality 3D representations, only bankrolls can afford to use them in any related way - or every CG person wanting to use one in a render or animation will have to model it him/her self.  I'm sorry, what security breach is caused by a representation of a 50 y/o helicopter again?

I suggest that any 3D modeler that works for or is contracted out by companies like Lockheed start charging hundreds of thousands of dollars for their work - trademark your individual modeling technique and request a license for the contractual use of it! ;P

Here's another trick for 3D modeler to "get around" all this legal binding stuff and I've seen lots of modelers doing this, is that you make NO MENTION of the actual product name AT ALL. Take the Bell UH-1 for example, when you sell this model product you rename it like "Army transport helicopter" or "Army Common Helicopter" and so forth but you DO NOT mention its actual product name at all, besides the 3D model you made is not the same actual working machine in real life.

In this way the 3D modelers can sell items that may look-alike real world objects without attracting too much attention from those corporate hired, sharp-eyed snitches.

Hope that helps, and I would suggest a move to a different 3D model store because that place(Turbo Squid) is definitely compromised and will draw a lot of attention, beside I found the idea of selling a 3D toothbrush model at 100 dollar (just a figure of speech) apiece outrageous and unacceptable.

*"It's already been pointed out that their 'design' has already been paid for by the US taxpayer"

*Are you suggesting that simply selling a product transfers the copyright?

GhostWolf,  I think that that is a pretty good way of disarming the major corporations, even if I still believe that it shouldn't be necessary.     Of course, what we'll get is an unfortunate modeller, who deliberately changes a few salient details - and then gets taken to the cleaners for not presenting an accurate version of whatever it may be.   Close enough, but not close enough, so to speak.   

I thought I'd read that they were being taken down regardless of name if an offending resemblance was claimed...

Yup, page 1: :rolleyes:

"Just to let everyone know, Turbo Squid is removing all products that have any similarities to real-world vehicles made by Lockheed, Cessna, and Bell Helicopter, irregardless of the name of the digital product."

"Any similarities"???    I can believe lawyers capable of most things, but not of being thick enough to fall for that.   That clause is virtually limitless.

...and this is how democracy falls, not by war, by but by complacency, by allowing those with power to do as they please...
sorry, you can't own ANYHTING you can't hold physically: that's what folk simply cannot accept. 
bunch of aliens fly over head, take a photo,  re-build a Porche from the gorund up..oh who's gonna stop 'em? )r the billions of tv shows/films etc we've been bemaingout for decades itno space, who owns 'em, eh?
What happens in 50 years when mahcines really can replicate anything from a photo?

Sorry, it's all insanity. Only the moral right of a creator to be recognized as the true creator, is the only logical thing that can be applied to art. Once somone sees/hears/reads something THEY OWN IT IN THEIR HEAD. ANd if you don't watch out, that too will be illegal...
People's love affair with materialism is abut to hit the buffers. Digital "reality" and destruction of our planet...

As one person, a profiler for the FBI, iirc, aptly pointed out, a corporation is by defination a psychopath. Nothing, absolutely NOTHING matters except their own advancement.
So, please think of that when supporting all the various "IP" laws and such. One day, you will own nothing, everything will have a EULA...and then we'll be slaves...ther'es freedom for all, or freedom for none. Our own greed and short sightedness blinds folk to the dangers, we all want our piece of the poisoned pie...
Go check what the RIAA etc have been up to, it goes way beyond even the absurd ;)

apologies for rant but hell, warned folk about this stuff 10+ years ago
Lol only stopped into Poser forum to ask a question, hehe!

*Any similarities"*Yep. That falls under the argument that a derivative (something like but an exact copy) weakens the original in some way.  Ussually the lawyers argue it damages the orignals brand or image.

*when mahcines really can replicate anything from a photo? *Thats sort of possible now. You could use photogrammety to make a 3d object, clean it up and then print it on a solid printer.   

*apologies for rant *Rant away :) I know exactly what you mean. The scary part is groups like the RIAA have no legal powers, yet ISP's and telecos cave in every time and the RIAA acts like Judge and Jury. 

But If you where a terrorist planning to blow something up, the cops can't use certain types of evidence. Wrong and just stupid.     

just as an aside, the DSM4 has deprecated the use of the term "psychopath". it's now mostly used by media personalities, but not by psychiatrists, who sometimes use the term "sociopathic personality disorder", but even that is not regarded as a very useful diagnostic tool.

Quote - Lockheed doesn't even exist any more, does it?   Wasn't it swallowed up by Boeing?

No, they are the two big guys in the US military aerospace industry...

Boeing swallowed Mc Donnell Douglas and Hughes...

As an aside aside, an excellent example of a pyschopath/ sociopath is Hannibal Lecter, especially as seen in Silence of the Lambs. True pyschopaths are usually highly intelligent, but are lacking in empathy. This is why Lecter killed (and ate) his victims "and his heart rate never got above 84" (or whatever the quote is).

And, yes, the media uses this term for anyone who they consider "crazy".

Corporations can't be "psychopaths" since they're a corporation. ;)
However, too many companies are run by corporate lawyers who think the best marketing strategy is to sue, even if it means trashing the company's reputation.
And in the case of the RIAA, they believe the best plan is to legally extort money from their customers: the RIAA has told people that they can pay $3,500 for the RIAA to drop the case or else the RIAA will sue and the person will they'll have to pay for a lawyer, a legal defense, etc.
Anyway, back on the subject: in my conversations with TurboSquid, it seems that the admins are trying to protect customers from purchasing items (such as aircraft), only to find out that it wasn't properly "licensed".
They want to avoid a situation where someone makes a video and Lockheed (for example) finds out. The person may say he bought the "Military Attack Copter" (which has no copyrighted markings on it), but Lockheed may say it resembles their own helicopter too closely and that the merchant who made the product doesn't have permission from Lockheed to sell it.

What happens to the video? Is the person supposed to take it down? Can he get a refund from the merchant since he bought the product specifically for use in his video? Can the customer go after TS with some kind of claim about false advertising? In these days of anyone suing anyone for anything, who knows what could happen.

Jhoagland,
yeah that was the point: corporations have no empathy, like a psychopath, all they care about is their own, selfish, petty desires ;)  As an entity. they behave in an insane manner.
-As another aside, recent study thinks this is due to area in the brain relating to comprehending facial expressions is much smaller/damaged in such folk.
-In the case of corporations, individuals let the entity over-ride their morals and common sense, like what happened with the mass murdering regimes of the last century, SAME lunacy. All they care about is shareholders/profit margins...perfect example of this is the evil SOBs in an oil company who had to get rid of toxic sludge form their operations, rather than pay couple of million for European companies ot do it properly, they came up with a complex plan to illegally dump it in Africa for $250,000...killing dozens of folk in the process.
-Capitalism liek anything else we Humans do, is bad in extremes, and eventually will destroy itself (and us in the process). Too much power leads to oligarchies and as is happening int he USA, the destruction of the wealth and stability of the middle and workign class...who are essential in Capitalism for wealth egneration...it's liek a pyramid, jacke dup form belowan inch at a time...effectively, the foundations are being corroded and the structure unstable from being top heavy and the builders on the top aren't listening to the structural engineers from the bottom...simple analogy but basically true.

Anyway, coporationsa re trying to "own" EVERYTHING, rememebr Microsoft's isnane desire to patent the "right mouse click"? Companies are also immorally setting up "Patent traps", they make a spurios claim to ownership of idea for soemthing, so when soemone does make something, they step in and sue....

IMHO, only single Human beings should be allowed to have copyrights, it's dangerous and insane otherwise. The designer of a Porsche is fine, but not Porsche the company because how the flip can a thing that doesn't exist outside human social interaction bloody well own something? it's not REAL, a company is not a "real" thing. Companies are trying to extend copyright/patent durations...where as copyright linked ot a real person ends on their death (or can be extended), corporations are "immortal"...see the problem?

:)

Quote - Well here's your problem, if you made model which resembles their product and given away for free, they are probably not going to say anything about it. But if you actually sell them for commercial purpose (which is the keyword) without informing them first or made a contract with them regarding its designes, sooner or later you will be served with a court order.

I've seen lots of free firearms models in the freebies section and they look exactly like Heckler & Koch firearms, it's been there for years and so far they have not been taken down due to manufacturer's complaint.

 

I've read, however, that the firearms companies aren't worried about collecting royalties on models, since they still view them as free advertising.

regarding the hamas version of m. mouse, I recall the script had it killed by an israeli soldier who wanted to steal its land. we don't actually know if disney exerted any pressure on fatah to pressure hamas, but it's hard to imagine the CEO of disney doing anything but making a big donation to the israeli government. the misconception about free advertising is one of the oldest copyright or trademark myths on the internet. if H-K knew about these things, they'd be down quicker than white on rice. they can't waste their legal staff's time searching these 3D sites. which brings up a very disappointing policy that's common to all these sites - they try to excuse themselves from copyright infringement cases with concepts like "buyer beware", "transformative use" or unethical application of the DMCA.

Curiouser and curiouser. Is it a violation, I wonder, if someone picks up a pencil and draws one of these from memory, after having seen it on the six o'clock news? if so, the world must be insane.

Er, make that even more insane than I ever thought possible. ;-)

Curiouser and curiouser. Is it a violation, I wonder, if someone picks up a pencil and draws one of these from memory, after having seen it on the six o'clock news? if so, the world must be insane.

You hit the nail right on the head.   Taking the corporate "logic" to its limits, which isn't a very long journey, they actually ought to consider that drawing from memory is a violation (which wouldn't make the attitude less curious, by any means).   Likewise, when anyone manages to get a photo of a jet blasting over the hillsides, that should (by the same corporate "logic") be considered a violation, too.   The only difference between the pencilled-sketch and the photo, on the one hand, and the 3D model, on the other, is that the model ends up on the internet, on predictable sites, where the lawyers can find it easily.   I suppose that you can add to that the fact that a 3D model does look, to the uninitiated, quite technical, even when it isn't, for real-world purposes.    No lawyer wants to have to convince a jury that some inept scribble, that looks roughly half-way between a VTOL Harrier and a harrier of one of the various species of the genus Circus, realistically presents any threat to security.   This shows up the hypocrisy of the whole policy. 

For real coporate stupidity the best I've read is Dells EULA, bascially you can't sell the machine to anyone in the axis of evil or use it to create anything nuclear. You have to sign it as well or they won't deliver the machine.

I can just imagine Osma and his crew sitting around dissapointed saying "we've had to scrub the dirty bomb plan because it infringes an EULA, looks like it's back to blowing sheep"  :)

Yep.   I don't work for Dell, but I have to make an annual promise not to sell nukes to Kim Jong-Il and co.   Not too hard:  I have no sympathy for Kim and my company doesn't make nukes, anyway.