SoulTaker opened this issue on Jan 31, 2011 · 135 posts
WandW posted Fri, 04 February 2011 at 10:17 AM
Quote - Yes it was:
"In due course, defendants moved for summary judgment on the theory that Meshwerks’ wire-frame models lacked sufficient originality to be protected by copyright. Specifically, defendants argued that any original expression found in Meshwerks’ products was attributable to the Toyota designers who conceived of the vehicle designs in the first place; accordingly, defendants’ use of the models could not give rise to a claim for copyright infringement."
This is the definition of a derivative work, and also see footnote 7.
You are correct, (I shouldn't read legal briefs so early in the morning; I did read footnote 7, but it is not part of the body of the decision) but that is not the thrust of the decision: the Court did not rule that Toyota held the copyright to the models; the Court ruled that the mere reproduction of a physical object was not in itself copyrightable, so the models were not subject to protection:
As the Court more recently explained in Feist, the operative distinction is
between, on the one hand, ideas or facts in the world, items that cannot be
copyrighted, and a particular expression of that idea or fact, that can be. “This
principle, known as the idea/expression or fact/expression dichotomy, applies to
all works of authorship. As applied to a factual compilation,” the particular
matter at issue in Feist, “assuming the absence of original written expression,
only the compiler’s selection and arrangement may be protected; the raw facts
may be copied at will. This result is neither unfair nor unfortunate. It is the
means by which copyright advances the progress of science and art.” Feist, 499...
...Key to our evaluation of this case is the fact that Meshwerks’ digital wire-
frame computer models depict Toyota’s vehicles without any individualizing
features: they are untouched by a digital paintbrush; they are not depicted in
front of a palm tree, whizzing down the open road, or climbing up a
mountainside. Put another way, Meshwerks’ models depict nothing more than
unadorned Toyota vehicles – the car as car. See Appendix A. And the
unequivocal lesson from Feist is that works are not copyrightable to the extent
they do not involve any expression apart from the raw facts in the world.
That is, if Meshwerks had made exact replica meshes of Model T's or ancient Greek statuary, they would still not be copyrightable.
Embelishing a model of a physical object would make it copyrightable, but would not likely remove its status as a derivative work if it were based on a copyrighted work.
(edited to avoid the wrath of the Apostrophe Police)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Wisdom of bagginsbill:
"Oh - the manual says that? I have never read the manual - this must be why."