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.
I don't sell any products with the brand names of "Lockheed", "Cessna", or "Bell Helicopter", but one of my products does have a likeness to one of their real-world vehicles.

Here is a copy of the notice I received today, regarding the issue:

---

Christell Gause
Support    
2007-07-05 5:34:05 PM CDT -- Lockheed Take-down
I am writing you this letter to inform you have infringed upon a pre-existing takedown notification from Lockheed regarding your submission of the following product(s) on the Turbo Squid system:

[existing product, which was uploaded and approved for sale in 2004]

Pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, I am notifying you of our decision to remove the product(s) listed above to comply with the pre-existing resolution.

[Information on how to reply to the claim]

We have suppressed these models. We are in the process of removing all Lockheed, Cessna, and Bell Helicopter models from our site. If you wish to dispute the claim we must hear from you within 7 calendar days.

Very Truly Yours,
Designated Agent
Turbo Squid, Inc.

Attached Link: http://www.turbosquid.com/FullPreview/Index.cfm/ID/181967

are they gonna crack down on the starwars models, too (if any)? I noticed the basketballs are now more reasonable in price.

I assume that the for-sale Star Wars items will only be removed when Lucas serves them the same takedown notice as Lockheed.
But, I only know about the notice from Lockheed.

I get stitches in my sides everytime someone mentions "Turbo Squid" and "Basketballs" in the same sentence!  LOL   I can't believe that people actually pay $150.00 for a single basketball model!!!! :blink:

Quote - I assume that the for-sale Star Wars items will only be removed when Lucas serves them the same takedown notice as Lockheed.
But, I only know about the notice from Lockheed.

Did Lockheed do that because the items were for sale or is that their policy for all items that are "fan art" even free stuff?

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

As far as I'm concerned they can take all models from TurboSquid and close the place down completely. All that merchants do is rip off people at that place, asking $35 and even $100 for a model that costs $8.50 at other places. I've always wondered how merchants can even justify selling at that place, I don't buy any items at all from merchants that do sell items there. But that's just my opinion.....

I have the same opinion. I see a lot of Poser rips on that site. The price gouging is insane and people actually waste their money on those models. I guess when you have money to burn, shop Squid. I have a feeling merchants aren't setting their prices, Squid is. The merchants will only get a cut, a small cut, that's probably why the prices are so high. Thats just my guess, mind you.

Daz is almost just as pricey as Squid, if you ask me. You join the PC to get the models at a 1.99 but you still have to pay a small fortune for being a PC member yearly. When you come down to it, these sites make their money by selling products, they give the merchants a cut and nothing more.

CP does the samething etc. Squid maybe a bit pricey on tag but when you add it all up all the Poser sites are just as high as Squid in a roundabout way. Just that Squid doesnt cover a club PC price or a special passport price.

People think they get good deals at CP & Daz but really, you aren't, you're paying more than you would if you bought the same model at Squid without shelling extra for joining a club or  pay a  membership fee. Im not defending Squid, just stating my opinion.

Ill add I dont go there for the most part.

Attached Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin

*Wasn't it swallowed up by Boeing? *Sort off ish - Wikipedia explains it well. 

A lot of the Lockheed-Martin UCAV's at last years Farnbrough show had Boeing engines. 

Merchants still have the choice to sell their items there or not. If TurboSquid chooses to pay the merchant a very low rate then the merchant can always say no.

I'm in the games business and have been for years. If I'm presented with a contract by a publisher that only offers me 10%-25% from the profits made, I kindly thank them for the offer and I'll try to negotiate a better deal. If they stick to the low rate, I take my game elsewhere. Why should someone get 90%-75% and hardly do any work for it? I don't think so.... I do have a choice and so does a merchant selling at TurboSquid. After all there are other place you can sell your items at.

As for Poser items, I agree, most of the stuff us higly overrated and not worth the price asked for. I'm not a member anywhere, except at PoserWorld, they offer items for prices the way it should be. I only buy items at sales, I wouldn't even think about paying the full price asked.

Lockheed Martin is still alive and well. My husband works for them here in Fort Worth and has for the last 28 years. 

Lockheed, like many large companies, contracts many things out.

Wonder if they will be free now?

*Wonder if they will be free now?
*Obviously I can't speak for other people who sell at the 'squid, but the VP Executive heli won't be a freebie. Thats still happily on sale at VP, Cornucopia and Content Paradise.

Maybe someone can explain to me how an artistic 3D model of an airplane can be an infingement? If you sell it under the name and brand of the product  and/or used copyrighted markings on the model, I can see it (even if I don't really agree with it). However, if you offer a generic jetliner that looks a lot like a certain model, how can that be copyrighted?

I know a lot of 3D modelers use basic blueprints for objects like this, maybe that's part of the problem. But even if I use photo references, I don't understand how that would be infringement. Does this mean that if I sold photographs or paintings of Lockheed aircraft it would be considered an infingement?

I think what is happeneing here is bullying by a big corporation, knowing that 99% of the people they issue these orders to won't have the money to challenge them in court. Look at the case by the University of Alabama against painter Daniel Moore for his football paintings. He has promised to fight not only for himself but for the rights of artists in general. Most people don't have the money or desire to do anything but comply.

' I think what is happeneing here is bullying by a big corporation'

I agree with that completely. It's certainly difficult to see how a 3d representation of something causes any injury whatsoever to the company who developed the actual aircraft. As a 3d modeler myself, I consider any physical object in the world a fit subject for modeling and am dismayed to think that any large corporation would seek to restrict that.

I haven't heard any details on why these companies have chosen to do this but I'd be interested in their rationale.

• Rick

To make a relation here - you do realize that all of those scale car models (including toys) you can get at your local hobby shop are licensed from the auto manufacturers!  Some time back the auto industry forced the model makers to require licensing before they could make a scale representation for sale.  Some model makers still release models without - and are usually taken to court.  Apart from logos and other trademarks, I don't know what this falls under exactly.  It may still be trademark or copyright of, if anything, the design and specifications.

So Lockheed is just doing the same thing - and might attempt to force such a licensing scheme on anyone who wishes to sell 3D representations of their 'products'.  How this might impact the CG movie industry is unknown.  Most likely, the film studios bring in the lawyers to make sure that any such use of an object is covered and licensed from the manufacturer twenty times in a stack of paper six feet high.

The entire thing does get ridiculous when one contemplates it.  Here's Lockheed, making billions and getting Federal government contracts (guess where the government gets its funds - hmmm) and they are squashing a few people making probably, oh my, a couple thousand dollars selling 3D model representations without direct trademark infringements (logos and names and such).  Once again, big business making a point to go out of its way to step on an anthill.

Just remember - UniversalCorp, OCP, Zorg, et al.  There are safeguards, but we never left the 19th century industrial revolution big-business mentality.  Now you might have a union, the boss might not send an army to squash a strike, and governments generally try to limit the greediness of large corporations, but that doesn't mean that acquisition, zealousness, and abject hatred of the consumer (the people that they think owe them) don't still exist (M$, Sony, RIAA, MPAA, and on and on).

Not the 1st time either. The same thing happened a while ago when some aircraft companies tried bullying plastic model companies. While that was resolved, theres one thing here thats often forgotten with military models. 

The taxpayer pays the government who pays mega-corp to build these things. Who then gives and leases them to some dodgy foreign government who then turns them against us! So who really owns it ? 

I don't see this as bullying at all. If people around here make a piece of art and someone else makies copies those and sells them, everyone cries 'copyright infrigement', my art is stolen and so on.

Yet, we don't have a problem with merchants 'stealing' designs from car, plane and so on manufactors and selling those models.... if the people who own the copyrights to the design start doing something about protecting their designs, we all start calling, it's unfair, their bullies and so on.

These companies have every right to decide what happens to their design. They can allow us to 3D model them, they can forbid us, it's their choice, since they've designed the whole thing in the first place and if you want to remodel it, you at least could have asked their permission to do so.

Just a quick note Lockheed Martin and Boing are both still seperate companies (I have one son working for Lockheed and on working for Boeing), however the two companies have a number of collaborations in the areospace field. Can;t comment on th take down notice tho. Personally I see it as aeikema, Lockheed made the products in question and hold patents on them, that, to me, makes it thier right to allow or disallow 3D models based on those patented products.

mike

As mrsparky notes, this may hold for commercial designs but what about military ones (and others, say, NASA)?  At least in the US, all military objects actually belong to me (and all Americans).  We foot the bill, the government contracts out, and the companies build them.  Considering that I paid for these designs and the government cannot rightfully (and I say that knowing full well what the government does otherwise) withhold that information on any grounds.  Their current ideology is to use 'top secret' status to protect against designs falling into 'enemy hands'.  To quote one of my favorite human beings ever, Benjamin Franklin:

The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.

We are slowly slipping from a Democratic Republic into something else.  That never happened before, did it?  I'll just ROME around and contemplate that...  ;D  Rome wasn't a Democracy - just a Republic - but they did have a sort of President (the Consul).  But the Consul was also the head of the Senate and therefore combined the presidential:vice-presidential powers we know today.  We all know that the first Caesars started as Consul and then took dictatorial powers - Julius and Augustus (Octavius or Octavian).  The first was assassinated by Senators, the second became the first official Emporer of Rome which would continue for another five hundred years.

Ideally, every bit of information in the Federal government is supposed to be open to public scrutiny - even the prototypical death weapons.  Governments that build weapons in secret are bad governments - and they all do it and ours is no better.

Lockheed, Boeing et al own every trademark, patent, etc available for models they create. The governmnet or whoever tells them :this what we would like in the plane" and they go and make a model. If it's not up to specs they do it again. 

Although tax money is used, even the government can not turn around and sell the plane or model of it.  They own the plane created with THEIR specs not the actual prototype

the scale model producers have the same problem  lockheed and boeing just want a percntage
from the sale of a model .

and this is a problem why? They spend sometimes years creating a model. IMHO, they have every right to take a percentage if they give permission for use

Quote - These companies have every right to decide what happens to their design. They can allow us to 3D model them, they can forbid us, it's their choice, since they've designed the whole thing in the first place and if you want to remodel it, you at least could have asked their permission to do so.

I agree... The designs of their products are something they have spent millions or billions on developing, and they have every right to control and protect their use/misuse. Note that the reason that these merchants are able to sell their 3d models in the first place is because of the design itself. eg they cant just put a plank on a brick and call it a fighter plane. No one would buy that. It's the design that sells the mesh. So you can understand if Lockheed get a bit pissed if the merchant copies or bases the design on one they have copyright of.

And it's not just a case of the money. It is also a case of setting a bad precedent and that the spread of their design can hurt them in more then just financial ways.

eg say i buy a plane of theirs from Squid and then proceed to do a charming little render of it slamming into various buildings around the world. Or a youtube video of my girlfriend using their planes in less then wholesome ways.

Anyone really think that a serious company wants that kind of crap attached to their name ?

*but what about military ones.. *Those are the ones I mean - and I'm with you about the way we're heading away from democratic societys.  Living in Britain you see these little freedoms being eroded every day, mostty for the benefit of a few companies. 

edited to add 
*Anyone really think that a serious company wants that kind of crap attached to their name ?*somehow I don't think the average bad guy really cares about the coporate image of Lockheed :)  

Companies like Lockheed aren't spending their money trying to make the coolest designs- their research and development is all about how to make the best, fastest, most powerful, and most effecient machine for their clients. In many cases, the client is the US government.

I can understand how a company like Porsche would want to copyright or trademark a distinctive look of it's car, but does this same idea apply to the look of an F-22 fighter?

And taking that extension further, did Michael Bay have to license the design of the F-22 from Lockheed when he used actual F-22 fighters in Transformers? Or was he safe since he used fighter jets that were owned by the US government? Would his use of blowing them up "disparage" the F-22, which is the common complaint against allowing people to make their own models.

Did he have to get a license from Lockheed for Industrial Light and Magic to do their special effects work to transform Starscream into an F-22?
Though, in all likelihood, the F-22/ Starscream is probably covered under the license between Hasbo, the toy maker, and Lockheed.

Of course, this raises another point: how many licenses does Hasbro have in its "Transformers" line of toys? I know a lot of the later toys were officially licensed by GM and Chevrolet, but what about the earliest toys? Did Hasbro get licenses for a Transformer that turned into an an airplane that was obviously an F-15 or a car that was obviously a Porsche?
Or was Hasbro safe because this was 20 years before companies realized they could issue cease & desist orders to anyone making models that looked like their products.
So, is this where digital products are heading? Will digital model-makers need licenses just like Hasbro and Hot Wheels and Matchbox?

Wow. We were just talking about this on the Prod Showcase forum like about one week ago.

'It's the design that sells the mesh. So you can understand if Lockheed get a bit pissed if the merchant copies or bases the design on one they have copyright of.'

It's already been pointed out that their 'design' has already been paid for by the US taxpayer and we don't even have to go into the aspects of collusion between defense contractors and the government in the first place that ensures that they are always well compensated for their designs.

'The entire thing does get ridiculous when one contemplates it.  Here's Lockheed, making billions and getting Federal government contracts (guess where the government gets its funds - hmmm) and they are squashing a few people making probably, oh my, a couple thousand dollars selling 3D model representations without direct trademark infringements (logos and names and such).  Once again, big business making a point to go out of its way to step on an anthill.'

That sums the whole situation up nicely for me.

• Rick

"Companies like Lockheed aren't spending their money trying to make the coolest designs- their research and development is all about how to make the best, fastest, most powerful, and most effecient machine for their clients. In many cases, the client is the US government."
That's a completely wrong perception. Lockheed and other military aircraft designers do spent time in having their model look cool. They always have, it's part of their appeal. They spent much time on making sure the plane isn't only efficient, but also looks good. So, according to your own statement, that gives them the right to copyright it also.

I couldn't afford anything on Turbosquid anyway.  I could never figure out why their models are so expensive.  Do they really sell anything there?  I mean $150 for a basketball?  Come on what gives.  Does anyone know why they're so expensive?  Thanks.
Adrian

ask the staff there. they jack prices up... I know one trueSpacer that wanted to put stuff on for free or about $5 each. a week later 'Squid informed him the price was going up. He asked them not to and was told bluntly, sell at the prices they told him or leave.

The prototype of many Lockheed planes is being sold all over the world. What is added, removed, modified etc is what makes it different. I know of several countries who own the F16 but it is modified. The government bought their version of modifications like the other countries bought theirs.

The prototype is still copyrighted, patented and tradmarked by Lockheed. After all the work that they put into that prototype they have every right to copyright and patent it and if they choose to, to go after anyone who should not be copying it.  No different than any of the merchants in Poser  or other 3D apps who spend months on their models.  No one can "legally" copy those either. The only difference is companies like Lockheed and Boeing have the money to protect their interests. Maybe that's the raw nerve here

Instead of arguing what ought to be allowed and how things ought to work, below is information from the US government's copyright website. I'm not a copyright lawyer, but the definition I read of "Useful Articles" seems to exclude a military jet unless parts of that jet contains "pictorial, graphic, or sculptural authorship that can be identified separately from the utilitarian aspects of an object". 

It may be worth the time to query the copyright office over Lockheed's actions because the general shape of a military jet is utilitarian in nature and not intrinsically artistic. It would be hard for Lockheed to claim that the specific shape of their jets are artistic in nature and not built that way strictly for the purpose of achieving technical objectives. If the copyright office replies with a favorable written interpretation, that letter could be forwarded to TurboSquid to fight these actions.

Copyright Registration for Works of the Visual Arts
www.copyright.gov/circs/circ40.html
Useful Articles
A “useful article” is an article having an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information. Examples are clothing, furniture, machinery, dinnerware, and lighting fixtures. An article that is normally part of a useful article may itself be a useful article, for example, an ornamental wheel cover on a vehicle.

Copyright does not protect the mechanical or utilitarian aspects of such works of craftsmanship. It may, however, protect any pictorial, graphic, or sculptural authorship that can be identified separately from the utilitarian aspects of an object. Thus, a useful article may have both copyrightable and uncopyrightable features. For example, a carving on the back of a chair or a floral relief design on silver flatware could be protected by copyright, but the design of the chair or flatware itself could not.

Some designs of useful articles may qualify for protection under the federal patent law. For further information, contact the Patent and Trademark Office at Commissioner of Patents & Trademarks, U S Patent & Trademark Office, P O Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 or via the Internet at www. uspto.gov. The telephone number is (800) 786-9199 and the tty number is (571) 272-9950. The automated information line is (571) 272-1000.

Copyright in a work that portrays a useful article extends only to the artistic expression of the author of the pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work. It does not extend to the design of the article that is portrayed. For example, a drawing or photograph of an automobile or a dress design may be copyrighted, but that does not give the artist or photographer the exclusive right to make automobiles or dresses of the same design.

In a 1983 case, the "Copyright
Office had refused registration of a claim
to copyright in plaintiff's automobile wheel
cover design on the grounds that it was a useful
article which did not contain separable
sculptural features which could be considered
a copyrightable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural
work.
http://www.copyright.gov/reports/annual/archive/ar-1983.pdf

What Works Are Protected
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html

Copyright protects “original works of authorship” that are fixed in a tangible form of expression. The fixation need not be directly perceptible so long as it may be communicated with the aid of a machine or device. Copyrightable works include the following categories:

1. literary works;
2. musical works, including any accompanying words
3. dramatic works, including any accompanying music
4. pantomimes and choreographic works
5. pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works
6. motion pictures and other audiovisual works
7. sound recordings
8. architectural works

These categories should be viewed broadly. For example, computer programs and most “compilations” may be registered as “literary works”; maps and architectural plans may be registered as “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works.”

'The only difference is companies like Lockheed and Boeing have the money to protect their interests. Maybe that's the raw nerve here'

No, what grinds my gears is that if Lockheed and Boing were offering 3d models of their products for sale then I could see them getting their panties into a twist over someone offering competing products.

They are not making such models and have no plans to do so. It would be unrealistic for someone like John to license the right to use these designs so the end result is that these military models will not be available to anyone anywhere for any price.

And why should this be so? Haven't they glutted themselves enough on government dollars? A single cost overun on a single military aircraft results in billions of dollars so It's amazing that they would have concerned themselves with this in any way.

It's outrageous.

Quote - the scale model producers have the same problem  lockheed and boeing just want a percntage
from the sale of a model .

 

From what I've read, its not that they want a percentage, they want a fixed fee plus a percentage. The fixed fees are in the six figures (at least), which may be acceptable for Mattel who might make 100,000 units of Barbies M1A2Sep, but turn out to be prohibitive for plastic model makers, wargame miniatures companies, and places like turbo-squid. From what I understand, a good run on a plastic model might be 10,000. I spent a fair amount of time trying to find a Stryker model, and couldn't.

This is why nearly all the Abrams models are M1A1s, the F-16s are A and B models etc.

In the past, the munitions companies, as well as the car companies, viewed plastic models as free advertising (either for the newest models, or at least for brand recognition.)

Not to get into the argument of "is our government going the wrong way" since I have my opinions of that as does everyone else, but believe the ONLY answer is to study the candidates for public office AND vote for the ones with the correct (at least in your opinion) views. 

However, I can say that both the Ari Force and Lockheed had input into the Tranformers movie with respect to the F-22. Without knowing details I do know that Lockheed's security services were involved in filming the Raptor scenes along with the Air Force security.

Oh, and one more point, just because the govenment (and by extention the American public)
buys the aircraft, landcraft and seacraft, from a company, doesn;t give them (or the public) any more rights to the patented equiptment that goes into the creation of that craft, than buying a Chevy or Ford gives you rights to the patented equiptment that goes into the creation of that auto. Or to bring it closer, buying an item from the marketplace here doesn;t give you the right to ignore the copyrights of the creator of that item. The government is a BUY with the rights and responcibilities thereof.

mike

Two different 'buying' terms here.  Lockheed didn't construct the items and then sell them to the US government (using taxpayers dollars).  Lockheed was contracted by the government to construct utilitarian items used by governmental agencies (using taxpayer dollars) - which are supposed to be public and open not private and closed.  This is more akin to me going to someone and contracting them to build me a 3D model for pay with stipulations of full disclosure - not me going out and buying a Boeing 777. ;)

Chevrolet and Ford build items and sell them to consumers while retaining all rights and patents.  This is private enterprise.  Lockheed et al are building aircraft and spacecraft under contract for the US government - this is public enterprise.  All that we have to do is stop Congress from passing annual governmental agency funding and Lockheed (et al) would have to earn profits solely from commercial private enterprise.  Do you think they'd renig on some of this hot air ballooning if that occured?

I could see this type of action if the 3D models were accurate in every detail - that might be too much.  But I doubt that even gross details are retained in these models - only the 'look & feel' which is what I suspect they are playing at since no logos, trademarks, or names are used.

My personal view is that the corporations are going a bit overboard (sarcastically stated) with this anal-retentive retention of every possible aspect of their products.  Soon enough, if not already, just using a photograph, painting, or looking at it will cost money.  Next they'll find a way to charge  you for water - oops, already done that.  Protecting designs that can be used to a company's advantage is expected - don't want to just give away a new engine design.  But this isn't about competitive designs is it?

Next thing you know we'll have Germany (or some Neo-Nazi organization) suing every maker of models of Tiger-Panther tanks, Kubelwagens, 88mm guns, the kettle helmet, and Swastika.  Where will it stop?  If you take my photograph, since I own my likeness, you need to pay me an undisclosed sum for any commerical use (in a newspaper, magazine, brochure, book) because you now have my likeness which I can trademark.  Greed is not good.

:shakes head in shame of humans:

Robert

There is the world of difference between infringing an aircraft manufacturer's patent rights and simply creating a 3D software model, the sole purpose of which is to help in the creation of images.   There are some very good-looking 3D models out there, but , if you're wanting to emulate Lockheed's technology, a model from Turbosquid isn't going to help you very much (although, at those prices, perhaps it ought to).

Seriously copying an aeroplane needs an actual aeroplane, or, at the very least, its detailed plans, and the external appearance of the thing is the least of it.   After all, that's a tricky thing to keep secret, when the aeroplane is screaming around the countryside, scaring the sheep and burning up taxes.

Allegedly, the Russians copied a B29 from the ground up, when it made an emergency landing in the Far East in 1945.   They let the plane re-fuel and take off again, but not until they had measured and photographed every last molecule of the thing, inside and out.   Then they set up a production line that worked in feet and inches, so that they could build one.   That's the kind of detail you need to make a serious copy of an aeroplane.  

The idea that the aircraft manufacturers are seriously helping to protect their secrets by pursuing the likes of Turbosquid is plain daft.   It smacks of corporate arrogance, greed and a legal department with too much time on its hands.

Well, here's my last say on the subject, mostly because I agree that it's a bit pointless exercise and, as a modeller I resent so I've been presenting these arguments more as a "devil's advocate" than anything else. Still there is one finale argument, Somewhere down the line the underworked legal department got a US judge to agree with their arguments and issue the orde to remove the modelsgiving it the weight of law, right or wrong. As I said concerning the wayt to change the direction of government (and I FREVERANTLY HOPE everyone will use the power of their vote to show the government who the work for, a good start has been made, but it's not over yet : end of advertisement) ther is really only one way to fight this. Get some money together, hire a laywer and fight the rulling in court! If you relaly disagree then challenge the action. I'll contribute to the legal fund (not much I'm poor, but some andyway!).

'nuff said
mike

One last statement from me as well.  I agree with the licensing fees for use of such items in movies as it makes sense.  Studios may invest millions but they expect to make millions in profits - lawyers and licensing aren't exactly detrimental here.  But we're talking about someone making a few hundred dollars on the off chance of a sale.  Going a bit further though, it is possible that a CG studio guy might purchase said item for use in a movie - but then I'd think that the lawyers would show up anyway doing their lawyer things.
Here's a hint to the people making these 3D 'knockoff' models: introduce slight variances as well as similar (but not exact) names and logos.  Note the variances for your legal defense.  Why?  Because if it isn't the same you can make proprietary claims and avoid legal issues.  I mention this because I play guitar.  Guitars are 'copied' quite often - especially in Japan where you can get something like a Fenda Stratacasta which looks almost identical to the Fender Stratocaster except in the name and slight design variances.  This is considered legal as it is not an exact duplicate and the makers do not make claims to be the original.  Of course, laws vary from nation to nation so how far this can be taken and to what extent the variances are must be considered. :)

phaneuf's enough,
Robert

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.

A few more issues:

In regards to movies:
Companies (such as Chevy and Lockheed) can get millions of dollars' worth in advertising. Just look at the Chevy/ Transformers commercials on TV. In this case, Chevy could work a deal with the movies studio and neither would have to pay the other any licensing fees.

The "it's different" defense:
Yes, I could spend all day saying how my helicopter was built using an Airwolf plastic model and the "Airwolf Flight Manual". I'll freely admit that I've never taken any measurements from an actual helicopter, nor have I even stepped in a helicopter to research building a 3d model.
So, yes, obviously, my models are not exact replicas of the real world item. Are they close enough for digital artists' use? Absolutely.

Actually, in some cases, the models are slightly "wrong" so they can work in a specific program. Does a real Blackhawk Helicopter have "body parts"? Of course not, but you need them on a Poser figure file so the parts will move.

Plus, does anyone really expect a digital model to include every single nut and bolt from the real vehicle? Can anyone accurately model (and texture) the interior of an F-22 aircraft when it's probably classified as Top Secret?

However, using this defense means that you have to take the case far enough to actually use a defence. Lockheed, like all corporations, can easily out-spend any person before the case even gets put on a court docket (if a court will even hear the case).

So, even though I never claim that my models are perfectly exact replicas, can I afford the $10,000 or $20,000 (for example) to hire a lawyer and file a legal defense? Can TurboSquid afford to do this?
Do anyone of us want to put up with the stress of fighting a legal battle over the sake of some digital models? Yes, there's the principle of the issue, but still.

Anyway, it wasn't my intention to start a debate on whether Lockheed can or can not copyright the design of their aircraft. Maybe they can't own a copyright since the design of an aircraft is for the US government or maybe they can since they put their time and enery into research and development.

I posted the message to let everyone know that Lockheed had filed a takedown notice at TurboSquid. Will they come after other sites? Will other companies do the same thing? Will we finally see a crackdown on all "looks like" products?
And will the 3d industry become like the plastic model industry, where any "looks like" product must be officially licensed and royalties must be paid to the original company?

Recent thread:
Subject: Now for sale: Ferrari F-40
[ http://market.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?message_id=3004630&ebot_calc_page#message_3004630

](http://market.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?message_id=3004630&ebot_calc_page#message_3004630)Spooky!

Maybe the Lockheed CEO hang out of Rosity and reads our threads!!!

Quote - There is the world of difference between infringing an aircraft manufacturer's patent rights and simply creating a 3D software model, the sole purpose of which is to help in the creation of images. 

 

I thought the sole pupose was to profit from those 3dmodels..in this case profit from someone elses IP.

Lockheed has been at this for several months now(there's a thread at cgtalk about Military-meshes.com receiving a C&D)..& I fully expect other big companies to turn there eye on the internet..there's way too many content creators who are profiting from other peoples designs & it cant go on forever,

so if you've had a C&D because you've been selling someone elses designs..all I can say is.. tough titties :P..make something original instead :-),or talk with Lockheeds marketing dpt about licensing said IP,they might even offer a license that's more in-line with the profits you'd expect to make

well, I suppose when the model price started approaching the the actual plane's price...;)

The Basketball was $150? dang, I remember when it was only $99...;)

well, I suppose when the model price started approaching the the actual plane's price...;)

The Basketball was $150? dang, I remember when it was only $99...;)

Attached Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations

Even though I work for Boeing, I have an idea why Lockheed is asking for removal of said models. It is because of ITAR- International Traffic in Arms Regulations, which classifies how defense related designs, products, and serevices are to be exported. The issue here is that military aircraft designs are controlled by ITAR, and a 3D model is representational of a design. An export is when an ITAR controlled item is brought outside the U.S., when transferred to a foreigner within the U.S., when trasnsferred to a U.S. citizen working for a foreign company in the U.S. By selling a 3D model of an ITAR controlled item on the internet, this constitutes an export. The U.S. State Department has a "blacklist" of restricted contries for trade of defense related items. Someone in a blacklisted country could procure the 3D model and reverse-engineer it, and it could compromise national security. As for commercial aircraft, most are controlled by EAR- Export Administration Regulations. EAR regulations are less stricter than ITAR, although some countries such as Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lybia, and Cuba are still blacklisted. The purpose of EAR is to prevent industrial sabotage, which costs the U.S. billions in lost revenue every year. I hope this helps.

I only model my own stuff so I own the copy rights to all my meshes :)

 

A lawyer will charge you up to $3000.00 to get ya copy right for ya.

You can get it ya self for $20.00.

 

RorrKonn
http://www.Atomic-3D.com

I dont see the fuss. It's only a 3D model, used for art rendering. Whatelse can you really do with them?

Quote - Even though I work for Boeing, I have an idea why Lockheed is asking for removal of said models. It is because of ITAR- International Traffic in Arms Regulations, which classifies how defense related designs, products, and serevices are to be exported. The issue here is that military aircraft designs are controlled by ITAR, and a 3D model is representational of a design. An export is when an ITAR controlled item is brought outside the U.S., when transferred to a foreigner within the U.S., when trasnsferred to a U.S. citizen working for a foreign company in the U.S. By selling a 3D model of an ITAR controlled item on the internet, this constitutes an export. The U.S. State Department has a "blacklist" of restricted contries for trade of defense related items. Someone in a blacklisted country could procure the 3D model and reverse-engineer it, and it could compromise national security. As for commercial aircraft, most are controlled by EAR- Export Administration Regulations. EAR regulations are less stricter than ITAR, although some countries such as Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lybia, and Cuba are still blacklisted.

If there are licensed plastic model kits, it seems unlikely that this would have any practical affect.
If somebody want serious information on military hardware, they'd get hold of the relevant Jane's guide.