DAMN !!! ... I'm in love!

SamTherapy makes a model of a Dalek, the well known villain from the BBC tv show Doctor Who. In order to avoid getting sued, he does not call it a Dalek, does not offer it for sale (it's a freebie) and the readme explicitly states it is not to be used for commercial purposes at all, and also acknowledges the original creators and copyright owners of the Daleks.

None of the above, however, are proof against being sued. The fact of the matter is, I have copied someone else's intellectual property. Whether or not I call it something else, charge for it or give it away or whatever I do is besides the point. If BBC Worldwide and/or the estate of Terry Nation decide to sue me, they'd most likely win."

So in essence, you shouldn't model anything that exists in the real world (either physically or as an idea), that was built either by a company, corpration or by an individual. And you certainly shouldn't give away that model.

That means that at least 50% of all the models ever made are borderline illeagal.  Lot's of modelers take pride in how close to the original object they are able to get. Most of the modeling tutorials use real life objects as reference. So often the whole point of modeling is to represent a real life object in 3d space. And what about all the beautiful, authentic looking car models out there, all of them should be considered illeagal?

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just pointing out the absurdity of the situation.

DAMN !!! ... I'm in love!

 She says a box of Twinkies will get ya a date...  BUT if yer goin out to a restaurant better bring your platinum card.

Quote - That means that at least 50% of all the models ever made are borderline illeagal.

If they are derived from copyrighted material, yes, just so.  It's up to the copyright holder to try to enforce it, but it doesn't mean it's clean and legal/ethical to do it.  Typically only wealthy corporate types can actually take it to court but it's pretty common for brokerages like here and Turbosquid to comply with a fair showing of proof of origin (see many examples in Renderosity's history).

So we have one camp saying that all 3D models of real objects are illegal, and an other camp saying that plaIn models of real world objects are so common and unorginal that they are not even copyrightable. When shall you make up your mind? (This thread is really enjoyable)

Utilitarian objects, i.e. a chair, cannot be copyrighted, but they may qualify for a design patent.  Make a model to close to an actual, iconic real world item and you could be in trouble.

jestmart, "..and you could be in troubl"

It would be very helpful if you could show some links to precendents. And I don't mean big actors like Toyota and Disney but court decisions about 10 dollar objects..

Why would you need a $10 object? That's relevant only if you are confusing "is legal" with "is unlikely to be prosecuted". Your earlier summary is in any event wrong - the Toyota case appears to show that is a 3D model is an exact copy of a real item then the maker of the 3D model does not have any claim for copyright protection as they have not contributed anything original - that doesn't mean that both the original and the 3D model are not protected by copyright, just that the rights belong to the creator of the original: if a 3D model is somewhat original then it may well enjoy protection in its own right, and as long as it doesn't infringe upon another's copyright (or as long as the maker has permission to make a 3D version) that copyright would belong to the maker. Again, no one is saying all 3D models of real items are illegal (or rather infringing) - only that there's a good chance that models of items that are protected by copyright may very well be found to be so if challenged (and of course there are also trademarks to throw into consideration - which unlike copyright must be actively protected, so if the BBC learns of Sam Therapy's Daleks they may have to act whatever their feelings on the matter).

According to your reasoning all the hundreds of thousands of car models are illegal. Of course it is not so. Once a company has allowed 'fan art' or what you call it they can't renege, its a one way ticket, it becomes precedence. Then if the model can be copyrighted or not depends only on the degree of originality.

LINK

May be of interest...

Vintorix pretty much everything you're saying about copyright is dumb and wrong, and has been tested in court many many times.  Just FYI, thanks.

Quote - LINK

May be of interest...

for $100.00 ???

Sheesh, I knew lawyers were expensive BUT ...

OR ... Get a used copy for ~$3 ... What does that tell you? :blink:

Thnx 4 the link, anywho.

for $100.00 ???

Sheesh, I knew lawyers were expensive BUT ...

OR ... Get a used copy for ~$3 ... What does that tell you?

Give up 3dmodeling,  go to law school,  write a book,  then use it to line the birdcage?

LOL!

Yup!

LOL!  i could start in on the lawyer jokes but i'm tryin' real hard to get off of Anna's naughty list.

???????????????????????? HUH? :blink:

re: your "wish" link (see image above)

Anna's a lawyer where my Aunt works.  She specializes in business law.  i got sued by them for $120.  They allowed me to split it up into 6 payments,  though. 

Anyhoo,  once i'm off her naughty list,  she's gonna handle all the incorporation stuff.  Probably wouldn't be a bad idea to talk about copyrights...

Quote - Anna's a lawyer where my Aunt works.  She specializes in business law.  i got sued by them for $120.  They allowed me to split it up into 6 payments,  though. 

Anyhoo,  once i'm off her naughty list,  she's gonna handle all the incorporation stuff.  Probably wouldn't be a bad idea to talk about copyrights...

$120.00 ??????   WOW, musta been purdy B.A.D., no? :lol:

"Probably wouldn't be a bad idea to talk about copyrights..."

Except that only specialed lawyers know anything about copyright...

LOL!  It was a doctor bill.  The doctor's secretary typed in the wrong code and my insurance company wouldn't pay it until she used the correct code.

I'll ask my Aunt if they have a copyright lawyer.  She should know,  she's worked there for 43 years.

That would be super, then maybe we could sort out a thing or two!

Otherwise, Mona Ibrahim at Imua in Seattle is an international repected and acknowled expert in the field.

i just googled Mona's site,  i wonder if we should contact her.

I envy you if you do, there are no one in Sweden that are even near that kind of expertice.

E-mail sent.  Hopefully she'll reply.

The final answer is the same for every law-related one: the ONLY thing that matters is HOW MUCH MONEY you and your opponent can throw at their respective legal teams.

For further references, contact Antonio Meucci (an example of too little money) or O.J. Simpson (first trial, an example of enough money).

Quote - Can copyrights,  trademarks and patents be inherited through wills?

The main difference between Copyrights and the other two is that the death of the creator starts the clock on the remaining time (something like 70 years) that the Estate has to exploit them before the work enters into the Public Domain.
I supsect that the only thing that can't be transferred is the Moral Rights (e.g. the right to be identified as the creator of the work).  

Quote - > Quote - That means that at least 50% of all the models ever made are borderline illeagal.

If they are derived from copyrighted material, yes, just so.  It's up to the copyright holder to try to enforce it, but it doesn't mean it's clean and legal/ethical to do it.  Typically only wealthy corporate types can actually take it to court but it's pretty common for brokerages like here and Turbosquid to comply with a fair showing of proof of origin (see many examples in Renderosity's history).

Well, I bought a gun model from the marketplace here (I simply can not model good looking guns myself yet) a couple of weeks a go, and I am almost 100% sure that the model in question is based on a real life gun.  In fact it's a pretty accurate representation of the real gun. I  assume that the real gun is copyrighted.  So one could argue based on what is being said here, that the gun model that I bought is infact illeagal.

If I were to model say, Aston Martin Db9 based on the blueprints I dowloaded from the web ( perfectly legal website as far as I know) and released the said model, I would be commiting a crime?

I'm not a lawyer myself, but for my part I think that these intellectual property laws  are absurd.  And if the legal system ever enforced these laws fully, 50% of all people making 3d art would be either in jail, or paying huge  compensations to corporations.

Quote -The main difference between Copyrights and the other two is that the death of the creator starts the clock on the remaining time (something like 70 years) that the Estate has to exploit them before the work enters into the Public Domain.I supsect that the only thing that can't be transferred is the Moral Rights (e.g. the right to be identified as the creator of the work).

i wonder how "Power of Attorney" would work concerning copyrights?

Quote -Well, I bought a gun

Why does the Poserverse have to be so violent?

Quote - ...

Well, I bought a gun model from the marketplace here (I simply can not model good looking guns myself yet) a couple of weeks a go, and I am almost 100% sure that the model in question is based on a real life gun.  In fact it's a pretty accurate representation of the real gun. I  assume that the real gun is copyrighted.  So one could argue based on what is being said here, that the gun model that I bought is infact illeagal.

I guess this is a common misunderstanding of the word 'illegal', which suggests that doing something 'illegal' is a crime. You are probably right in that the original gun is copyrighted by someone (say Mr. Colt) and the model was done without permission. But the point one should not forget here, is that the whole copyright is (in most countries at least) part of the civil law, not the criminal law. Which means it would become only "illegal" if Mr. Colt somehow gets hurt (financially or otherwise) by you buying the model, which is probably simply not the case.

Quote - If I were to model say, Aston Martin Db9 based on the blueprints I dowloaded from the web ( perfectly legal website as far as I know) and released the said model, I would be commiting a crime?

Surely not a crime in a judicial sense, maybe a copyright infringement. You probably simply cannot check the exact legal status of the blueprint on that website, so you just make your model, release it and if someone happens to be offended by it you will be informed one way or the other.

Quote - I'm not a lawyer myself, but for my part I think that these intellectual property laws  are absurd.  And if the legal system ever enforced these laws fully, 50% of all people making 3d art would be either in jail, or paying huge  compensations to corporations.

 

There is no punishment for copyright infringement (in spite of the dismay of many modelers probably), so there is no enforcement or even jail in for you. You could still pay some compensations, though. Imagine your Aston-Martin-Model is to be used for the next James-Bond-Movie, so the movie company pays you some million dollars, while letting the Aston-Martin-Designer (who made the blueprints) and his 12 hungry kids have nothing, it would only be fair for you to pay some compensations.

Read this, please.

http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/unprotected.html

"However, there is no copyright in the cut of the cloth, or the design of the skirt or jacket as a whole, since these articles are utilitarian. This is true even of fanciful costumes; no copyright protection is granted to the costume as a whole."

Exactly so, the whole fashion industry is without protection, and manage very well without it.

Quote - > Quote - ...

Well, I bought a gun model from the marketplace here (I simply can not model good looking guns myself yet) a couple of weeks a go, and I am almost 100% sure that the model in question is based on a real life gun.  In fact it's a pretty accurate representation of the real gun. I  assume that the real gun is copyrighted.  So one could argue based on what is being said here, that the gun model that I bought is infact illeagal.

I guess this is a common misunderstanding of the word 'illegal', which suggests that doing something 'illegal' is a crime. You are probably right in that the original gun is copyrighted by someone (say Mr. Colt) and the model was done without permission. But the point one should not forget here, is that the whole copyright is (in most countries at least) part of the civil law, not the criminal law. Which means it would become only "illegal" if Mr. Colt somehow gets hurt (financially or otherwise) by you buying the model, which is probably simply not the case.

Quote - If I were to model say, Aston Martin Db9 based on the blueprints I dowloaded from the web ( perfectly legal website as far as I know) and released the said model, I would be commiting a crime?

Surely not a crime in a judicial sense, maybe a copyright infringement. You probably simply cannot check the exact legal status of the blueprint on that website, so you just make your model, release it and if someone happens to be offended by it you will be informed one way or the other.

Quote - I'm not a lawyer myself, but for my part I think that these intellectual property laws  are absurd.  And if the legal system ever enforced these laws fully, 50% of all people making 3d art would be either in jail, or paying huge  compensations to corporations.

 

There is no punishment for copyright infringement (in spite of the dismay of many modelers probably), so there is no enforcement or even jail in for you. You could still pay some compensations, though. Imagine your Aston-Martin-Model is to be used for the next James-Bond-Movie, so the movie company pays you some million dollars, while letting the Aston-Martin-Designer (who made the blueprints) and his 12 hungry kids have nothing, it would only be fair for you to pay some compensations.

Thank you for bringing some much needed clarity into this discussion.  I am not a lawyer myself, neither have I ever studied law, so I am simply not qualified in interpreting copyright laws.

If I understood the gist of your argument then; if my actions bring (financial) harm to the person who owns the copyright  , then under the legal system I am obligated to pay compensation and/or face other punishment.

 But if I were to model say, Aston martin db9 and If I got no financial compensation for it and if that model wouldn't harm the copyright holder in any way, I would not be comitting a crime.

So in conlucions; the gun model I bought, wasn't in fact illegal, since it most likely didn't hurt the owner of the copyright in any way.

Financial harm, by understanding, would come into play when calculating any damages due to the owner of the copyright. The fact that you weren't gaining, however, would not mean you were free to infringe - and if the copyright owner took legal action to stop your infringement, or simply issued a valid DMCA notice, and you ignored any court ruling or filed a false DMCA counter-notice you would be committing a crime.

Quote - Financial harm, by understanding, would come into play when calculating any damages due to the owner of the copyright. The fact that you weren't gaining, however, would not mean you were free to infringe - and if the copyright owner took legal action to stop your infringement, or simply issued a valid DMCA notice, and you ignored any court ruling or filed a false DMCA counter-notice you would be committing a crime.

Yes, I see. Thank you for clearing this up for me.  Very helpful.