So here's something I notice while doing my research on the directory. I stopped off at Poserworld and I know that Steve and Allen are both from the UK ( I think).And I've always thought that it was Steve that did the modeling, and Allen did the texturing. I'm pretty sure now that it's the other way around though. Anyway, I've always thought they did really good work. In fact, from what I've seen, it's gotten better over the years. But what I happened to notice were a few models that had pretty accurate trademarking and branding on them. This struck me as odd considering the way so many of the props I see like here at Renderosity or at DAZ or elsewhere usually have something visually off about them. But theirs are pretty accurate. For example this model of a jar of baby food is from Poserworld.

It's an excellent likeness, but I know here in the US for example, I think DAZ and Rendo are afraid of being sued if they sold something like that without that company's persission, I think. So my question is what are the laws on trademarking when it comes to 3d objects, and are they the same or different in the UK and US?

Pretty much the same. Maybe they think it's not worth worrying about.

Rendo used to be a lot less vigilant when it came to trademarks; go back a few years and there were plenty of car models with the same name and logos as the real thing. Same with DAZ, too; I have a few I bought from there which have the brand correct logos, even if the names on the product are a sort of generic description.

Not 100% sure, but I think you are right about the sue thing. As the company logo is a trademark and someone using it in a way that the company wouldn't like it to would probably piss them off. Imagine that someone made a commercial image for fun with the text "All criminals drive Ford" and then threw in the Ford logo and one of their cars made in 3D. Its probably not the image that Ford would like to send to people. So pretty sure that its best to keep away from that, unless you got permission. But as you say, it depends on what country you live in, for instant in China I think you can copy whatever you like to the point where there is hardly any difference. You might get sued by the company, but they will most likely loose.

In the EU, Opel sued a manufacturer of toy cars for using its logo and lost.

https://www.mayerbrown.com/Files/Publication/e2a1e5ec-acf4-4d91-b212-2308c5c3d174/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/5f1b2aa4-1c3e-4e50-a87c-1439bc3a8431/ART_GERMANY_JAN08_TRADEMARKS_TOYS.PDF

Here's an interesting article regarding US trademark law and 3D models... "Trademark law arose in a world of physical goods to protect manufacturers and prevent consumer confusion as to who manufactured the goods. In a digital world, manufacturing will increasingly be done, if at all, by individuals with 3D printers. Other digital models, such as TurboSquid’s BMW models, will never exist as physical objects. Where consumers care about the quality of a digital file, trademark law can protect consumers from being deceived by indicia external to the file. But if purchasers are not confused about the source of the digital file based on external indicia, courts should channel any other potential claims (if any) to other areas of intellectual property law." https://patentlyo.com/patent/2016/06/digital-trademark-infringement.html

Neither are definitive answers, though. Whoever has the deepest pockets will continue to fight if they think it's worthwhile, particularly if they believe their products and trademarks are being brought into disrepute.

The BBC, while being relatively free and easy with fan art, take a very strong dislike to anyone using their stuff for political, satirical and commercial purposes. They had several ads, tv shows and various other things pulled which featured Daleks, when they were used without permission. You probably already know that Disney are notorious when it comes to protecting their intellectual property, whether used for commercial gain, fan art or just for fun.

Just a note: I've grown tired of trying to protect e-distributors in this market from the trademark infringements committed by their vendors... Trademark and copyright infringements are no joke and it appears that too many people, either artists/vendors or the sites that distribute their work do not understand how these things work. People try to cleverly skirt around such things, but they do that without fully comprehending their error and often stumble in trying to do so.

Artists and those supporting them should vigorously defend their own IP and that of others. Original art is cool. People should do more of it. :)

SamTherapy posted at 7:28AM Tue, 12 September 2017 - #4313904

Neither are definitive answers, though. Whoever has the deepest pockets will continue to fight if they think it's worthwhile, particularly if they believe their products and trademarks are being brought into disrepute.

The BBC, while being relatively free and easy with fan art, take a very strong dislike to anyone using their stuff for political, satirical and commercial purposes. They had several ads, tv shows and various other things pulled which featured Daleks, when they were used without permission. You probably already know that Disney are notorious when it comes to protecting their intellectual property, whether used for commercial gain, fan art or just for fun.

Disney would lose in court if it's a parody or satirical work in the US and they know this. So they usually just try to intimidate people with long drawn out court processes that they know most people can't afford. So Disney gets their way.