Slashdot Log In
Digital Models Not Subject To Copyright
Posted by
kdawson
on Sat Jun 21, 2008 07:41 PM
from the but-this-is-a-supermodel dept.
from the but-this-is-a-supermodel dept.
MonsterMagnet writes "The US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has affirmed (PDF) a ruling that a plain, unadorned wireframe model of a Toyota vehicle is not a creative expression protected under copyright law. The court analogized the wire-frame models to photographs: the owner of an object does not have a copyright in all images of the object, but a photographer may have a limited copyright over a particular image based on artistic choices such as costumery, lighting, posing, etc. Thus, the modelers could only copyright any 'incremental contribution' they made to Toyota's vehicles; in the case of plain models, there was nothing new to protect. This could be a two-edged sword — companies that produce goods may not be able to stop modelers from imaging those products, but modelers may not be able to prevent others from copying their work."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
That sound you hear.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Is millions of wireframe models being yanked from the Internet. Gentlemen... start your Blenders!
Actually, apparently the court ruled that the modellers didn't own the copyright because it's a representation of Toyota's design. I doubt if you got hold of this mesh and published it that you could avoid getting sued by Toyota.
Oh, and I wonder if it will grow the market for this clever device. [blogspot.com]
While we're on the subject... where's a great free library of blender-compatible models?
I hear some clever japanese gents are working on autogenerating wireframe models from multiple pictures like you find on Google street view as well.
Re:That sound you hear.... (Score:5, Informative)
I think you mean Australian gents.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vda2RAEuW_g [youtube.com]
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
How right you are. My apologies to the Autralian Centre for Visual Technology [acvt.com.au].
Make your own (Score:3, Interesting)
Write the software... (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, I'll get right on that. Maybe some nice slashdotter will volunteer, for Sourceforge fame?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand why it should cost so much. If I understand how this works correctly, then from the hardware end, you just need a camera, a laser, and something to deflect the laser light. Correct?
I can't think off the top of my head what would be best to deflect the light, but couldn't you just buy one of those cheap lazer pointers and probably use a camera you already have? I would think any HD camcorder would give at least somewhat decent results. Perhaps even SD camcorders or webcams may work. You
Re:Make your own (Score:5, Informative)
There is a free program called David that allows you to use a webcam, laser level, and some markers for reference to generate a 3d model. You have to be patient and make quite a few passes with the laser but the reults are pretty good.
Parent
Re:That sound you hear.... (Score:4, Informative)
http://e2-productions.com/repository/modules/PDdownloads/ [e2-productions.com]
Parent
Re:That sound you hear.... (Score:4, Insightful)
> I doubt if you got hold of this mesh and published it that you could avoid getting sued
> by Toyota.
Do you think you would be sued by Toyota if you published a photograph of one of a car manufactured by them?
Parent
Re:That sound you hear.... (Score:4, Funny)
If the photo displayed their trademark badging, reflected the product in poor light and was used to market another brand of car, yep youbetcha.
Also remember that companies take out trademark protection on the unlikeliest things. I'm pretty sure the moob forms on the front of a Jaguar are so protected. Of course there's that landmark case where Harley Davidson sued another motorcycle manufacturer for violating their trademark engine sound (which begs the question, "did they trademark the sound of a broken down Harley being pushed?").
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like somebody got bluffed, not sued.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, apparently the court ruled that the modellers didn't own the copyright because it's a representation of Toyota's design. I doubt if you got hold of this mesh and published it that you could avoid getting sued by Toyota.
To clarify --
The ruling is that a digital model is not subject to copyright. An original design, on the other hand, is subject to copyright or possibly 'trade dress' rights.
IOW, if I make a model of something existing -- there's no copyright protection. If I make a model of a nifty new product or a new design for a building, then that design is copyrighted, but the model is not.
It sounds like I'm splitting hairs here, but I'm not.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I am posting AC because I'm in this industry...
If you can create a digital representation of a model by scanning it (using the z-scan you mentioned or the tens of other digital scanners on the market) then you cannot be sued by the original creator of that physical object. You can even make an exact replica from your digital if there are no patents involved.
But this is strictly for digital models created from physical objects. Digital models created by hand still retain their copyright.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The article is talking about high quality models, but he's not.. he's talking about low poly game models.
One day, computer vision will be so good that you can give it a single photograph, it'll grind away for a few minutes and create an entire 3d world containing every object in the photograph, a mesh of the terrain, etc. You'll load it up in your favourite 3d game and apples will act like apples and cars will act like cars, etc. You'll be able to feed a 100 minute film into a much bigger machine running
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it won't be. Even if you assumed it could infer the geometry as well as human (remember, you're talking about a single photo here, so it wouldn't have any parallax to go on and would have to rely on a library of "previous experience" instead), it would still have no information for any oc
That already exists (Score:3, Insightful)
create an entire 3d world [...] apples will act like apples and cars will act like cars, etc. [...] You can choose how you want to participate in the action and your actions will have consequences on the plot line that are dynamic and non-fragile.
That already exists. It's called real life. I realise this is news for most slashdotters.
No, seriously, the modeling-from-photographs part already exists and it's called photogrammetry. But, just as a human needs multiple points of view to avoid making mistakes, so will (do) computers; there just isn't enough information in a single 2D photo, unless every single object in the scene is "known" (which rather limits the use of the system).
As to the rest, you'd have to couple photogrammetry with object
Racing games? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Racing games? (Score:5, Insightful)
Um. No. The last unsupported statement in the summary is at least half wrong: "companies that produce goods may not be able to stop modelers from imaging those products."
This case says nothing about this point. The companies may have copyrights, design patents, trademarks, etc. The fact that someone hired to make lifelike reproductions using wire meshes has no copyright in the work doesn't mean that no one has rights in it.
In any event, the real effect is pretty obvious: modelers should just charge MORE for their work so that they're fully compensated for the work product purchased by the company. Meshworks made a mistake in this case; they assumed that their work would be a loss-leader for the other portion of the work awarded to another company.
As for racing games, assuming that the modeling is done in-house, there will be no effect on price. If its done by a thrid party, it'll be MORE expensive (a cost ultimately passed along to you, the consumer).
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Now that's the kind of shit that pisses me off.
Blatant abuse of the DMCA. Yay!
Re: (Score:2)
Not likely. Since game companies are making money off the images of the cars. It doesn't seem like a particularly big deal for game companies to get brand name cars in their games though. It's just a matter of paying for the licenses, which considering the kind of money game companies pull in these days is a pittance.
T
Re: (Score:2)
No, because it's almost always trademark issues that make racing games license with car manufacturers. Sure, you can model a car if you like without any license whatsoever (and generally arcade racers do exactly that -- it's not like you can't tell exactly which car each "generic" racer in Burnout is supposed to be). But you can't call it a Ford GT and use their
Awwwww Junk (Score:5, Funny)
I thought that stuff was gonna be gold.
That's fine. (Score:3)
As someone who has done an amount of 3d modelling, that's fine by me. It's kind of hard to claim full copyright on a point-cloud. Take Bethoven's Head for instance. It is iconic because of how often it has appeared - despite it originally being a commercial model from Viewpoint, IIRC. The head as a model however is only a few hundred points relative to each other - it is trivial to copy and disseminate raw 3D data.
The truth is that the model or wireframe is only useful if it is utilized.
Re: (Score:2)
This case says nothing about the ability to have copyright in 3d meshes in general. It is really about one that is merely a slavish reproduction without ANY creative input (e.g. no colors, textures, etc.)
I would wager good money--this is a bet and not legal advice--that a mesh that makes artistic choices will be treated in a fashion VERY similar to a photographer or someone making lifelike oil paintings.
Convert ALL data into wireframe models NOW! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Convert ALL data into wireframe models NOW! (Score:5, Funny)
Audiophiles rejoice!
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I would actually love to see this done.
Two-edged sword -- (Score:2, Insightful)
...companies that produce goods may not be able to stop modelers from imaging those products, but modelers may not be able to prevent others from copying their work.
Sounds like win-win to me.
Kevin Scheidle has a lot to learn about copyright (Score:2)
"There's a lot more effort and time going into creating our images."
As many "I play a lawyer on slashdot" readers know, copyright has little or nothing to do with the amount of work that goes into producing it, and everything to do with being a creative work.
There was an important decision sometime in the early 90s if phonebooks were protected under copyright. IIRC it was a case where an independent publisher wanted to create a conglomerate phonebook for multiple different phone companies in the area. He
Sweat of the brow: US vs. Australia (Score:2)
There was an important decision sometime in the early 90s if phonebooks were protected under copyright.
In the United States, this was Feist v. Rural [wikipedia.org], and as you point out, the phone company lost because United States copyright law does not recognize "sweat of the brow". In Australia, on the other hand, a similar case (Desktop Marketing v. Telstra) went the other way because Australian copyright law recognizes "sweat of the brow".
But wait... (Score:2)
Re:But wait... (Score:4, Informative)
> If they're likening it TO a photograph... then it IS copyrightable just as professional
> photographers have a copyright to their photographs of "public" buildings.
Photographs are only protected by copyright to the extent that they contain creative expression. For example, the photographs in art books, which are intended to reproduce the original painting as accurately as possible, are not protected by copyright precisely because the photographers endeavor to eliminate all creative elements (of course if the original painting is still under copyright that still applies to the photo). Essentially the art-book photos are seen by the courts as copies of the original, not creative works in themselves. In a similar sense the court is saying that these models are a sort of copy of the original car rather than being creative works in themselves. A lot of work went into them, but that, according to USOC in Feist v Rural Telephone, was mere "sweat of the brow".
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have a cite for that art photo claim? I ask because, for instance, filmed coverage of congress from unmanned cameras by CSPAN gets full copyright protection even though it is similar in circumstances to the artbook photography you mention.
Re:But wait... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People make all sorts of _claims_.
Re: (Score:2)
I really can't imagine why. Architectural works created prior to 1990 (e.g. the Sears Tower) are not copyrightable, and even copyrighted architectural works which are located in or visible from a public place may be freely photographed without risk of infringement. There is an argument that art attached to the buildings could pose a risk, however, but it can be a case by case basis, with the applicability of the 17 USC 120 exception applying (as in Leicester v. Warner Bros.) or, as a fallback, fair use. Out
open source 3D MMORPG (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
> For a long time now, I've wondered about license or copyright on the community models
> for a game like, e.g., Neverwinter Nights, who owns the copyright? If this is to be
> believed, no one does.
That doesn't follow at all. The models in this case were of real objects. The ones you refer to are original works. They are not saying that models (wire or otherwise) are never protected by copyright: just that accurate wire models of real objects aren't because they contain no creative expression. It
Re:open source 3D MMORPG (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Summary is WRONG (Score:3, Informative)
The vehicle designer (Toyota) retains its design patents on the vehicles and the presumptive copyright on any creative expression reflected in the design of their vehicles. The models here are clearly derivative works. The court ruled nothing substantially new was added to grant new rights to the modelers. However, Toyota designed the vehicles, that design is reflected in immaculate detail in the models, and as such the models presumably may not be copied without Toyota's permission, barring some sort of fair use exception.
This decision rests on a landmark Supreme Court precedent called Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service (1992) [wikipedia.org], in which the Court held that the lists of names, addresses, and phone numbers in telephone directories were compilations of facts not creative works of authorship protectable by copyright.
This decision opens new ground, however, suggesting that much of the contents of any comprehensive digital model of the real world (digital maps come to mind) may not be independently protectable by copyright to the degree that those contents are intended to accurately reflect pre-existing reality rather than the creative selection or arrangement of the creator.
So... What does this hold for the "Coke bottle"? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm unclear. (TFA doesn't make it clear.)
Obviously, the company that made the model doesn't own the copyright on the shape. That, I honestly expected. But does this mean that (in this case,) Toyota doesn't hold the copyright on the raw shape, either?
i.e. I could go and create a car that has 100% the visible shape of the Toyota Prius, but as long as I change enough details (maybe a full-top glass roof, get rid of the hatchback, and obviously not use any Toyota trademarks,) that it would be 100% legal?
So how does this bode for the famous "Coca Cola bottle shape"?
While the raw shape apparently can't be copyrighted, would it still be covered under trademark?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, trademarks on shapes are a completely different issue. This didn't have anything to do with Toyota's trademark on the appearance of the cars, which they still have. The only thing decided here is a re-affirmation that "sweat of brow" labor with 0 creative content is not copyrightable.
The modelling firm merely made duplicates of existing objects. If they had created concept cars from scratch, almost-the-same knock-offs, or made a pixar flick about cars, then they would have some form of copyright to t
Need more details (Score:2)
For anyone who actually creates wireframe models they would know that there is creativity and expression within the way in which they are arranged by the artist. I'm going to assume the judge didn't actually open up the copyrights to the degree implied in the article. If the judge did... it needs to be overturned ASAP.
This decision reinforces Bridgeman vs. Corel (Score:4, Informative)
This decision cites Bridgeman vs. Corel [wikipedia.org] favorably. Four times. This is important.
The key decision on "originality" in US copyright law is Feist vs. Rural Telephone. [wikipedia.org] The information in lists, like telephone directories, is not a creative work and is copyrightable. You can scan in the phone book, load it into a database, and make it available on the web. Feist was a U.S. Supreme Court decision, and it created the third-party phone book industry, then made possible much useful repurposing of existing data. The decision in Feist stems from the Constitutional definition of copyright: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." The Supreme Court ruled that originality is required.
Based on Feist, a district court ruled, in Bridgeman vs. Corel, that photos of public domain paintings are not copyrightable. This opened the door to much free reuse of photos of old images, such as famous old artworks. There was much griping about Bridgeman from the museum community, one of the gripes being that it was "only" a district court decision. Well, now we have the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals saying not only that Bridgeman is good law (see p.18 of the decision), but that the concept in Bridgeman extends to 3D models of existing objects. So that's settled in US law.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Could this effect the copyrighting of some software?
For example, if I write the simple version of "Hello World" or "Quick Sort", am I adding anything original? What if I implement a (e.g. programing language) specification with exacting accuracy? Or what if I get "creative" with the spec would that give me more copyright protection? If someone later removes the creative aspects can they copy my "creative" implementation of the spec and avoid my copyright?
Let the legal thought experiments begin.
oh noes! (Score:3, Funny)
Oh noes! Teh courts can't tell the difference between proprietary and free! We should be able to copy Toyota wireframes because Toyota is Evil Corp, but Toyota can't use our mods on the wireframe because we put them under teh GPL. Next thing you know, some dumb judge will say it's okay for RIAA to do mashups of our mashups!
Re: (Score:2)
> The headline says that the wireframes are not subject to copyright, and that the judge
> used an analogy to photographs. But photographs are subject to copyright, so I'm very
> confused.
Photographs that contain creative expression are protected by copyright. Those that do not, do not. For example, an exact photocopy of a page from a book in the public domain is not protected by copyright.