Digital Models Not Subject To Copyright 131
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."
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]
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, Interesting)
http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~ravir/cvpr07.pdf [columbia.edu]
I only had a go after seeing that a guy on CG talk managed to do it (and he's an artist - not a programmer).... http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=109&t=636851 [cgsociety.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the information in that article is enough for me. Code would just introduce potential IP issues. Ideally though you would want a set of lasers, lights or diffraction gratings to project a grid onto the object to improve the resolution. I think four course diffraction gratings in different colors and lit by point light sources would do the trick. I'll work on it when I have time.
doubleplus thanks to the gp.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's not enough for me :P
What the hell are you talking about? I call FUD. This all depends on the license.
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: (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean this one? www.david-laserscanner.com [david-laserscanner.com] -- I am not sure, this one seems to be shareware...
Re: (Score:2)
That's the one. I don't remember it being shareware, though. I downloaded it a long time ago. I'll dig it up and see if the shareware part is new.
Re:That sound you hear.... (Score:4, Informative)
http://e2-productions.com/repository/modules/PDdownloads/ [e2-productions.com]
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?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like somebody got bluffed, not sued.
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?").
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
If the object isn't *in* the photograph then, no, it won't be able to model it. Otherwise, yes, it will be able to model occluded objects, just like a human can, because it has a lot of knowledge about what objects tend to look like.
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
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)
Actually, it didn't even hold that a digital model is not subject to copyright. It held that the process of making a digital model doesn't add sufficient original content to *itself* justify copyright. This doesn't mean a digital model is not subject to copyright.
For example, a purse does not by itself contain $50. This doesn't mean a purse cannot contain $50.
In this case, all Meshwerks did was copy a Toyota as accurately as possible into another medium. The court held that this alone was insufficient to gr
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:2)
This makes perfect sense. Imaging is imaging, whether it's done by eye and brush and paint, a camera, an eye and a mouse or a 3D imaging device. So the copyright mechanic is intuitively entirely the same regardless of the applied technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, no. Copyright draws a *huge* distinction between copies made in a fixed medium and unfixed copies that are incidental to use. This is why you can't photocopy all of a book but you can make a 'copy' of it on your retina to read it.
Re: (Score:2)
So, If I use special equipment to automatically model some object without adding any creative input, I have no copyright? That is not a big surprise.
However, if I model the same object by hand, I would have copyright on the model? If so that sounds fine. A hand modeled object will have some level of creativity in which points of the polygon were chosen, what resolution he different components were modeled at, any intentional differences from the original for aesthetic reasons, etc.
If this ruling does have
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, ignore my previous post. After looking closely, I see the key concept "intent was to replicate, as exactly as possible, the image of certain Toyota vehicles". I suppose the "as exactly as possible" is the issue. This would not affect many models which are not intended to replicate "as exactly as possible", but rather as exactly as desired, which would likely have significant creative input.
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).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ever hear of a design patent?
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
Models weren't the problem (Score:2)
Actually, AFAIK, models never were the problem in racing games. Trademarks were.
There are already games like Tokyo Xtreme Racer which have models of actual cars, but call them something else than the trademark. E.g., "Mazda RX-7 Type RZ" becomes "FD3RKK" and if you look closely on the car, it says "Madda". Others are even less obfuscated, so for example a Porsche Carrera 964 Turbo becomes "964T" and a Dodge Viper GTS is called "VGTS". But otherwise, the car looked exactly like the real thing. (Well, at leas
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps similar to photographic negatives? I'm not saying that a 3D mesh isn't creative - just that it is nebulous unless something is done with it. Textures, color and motion take it from potential to artistic works.
Viewpoint gave it away for free... (Score:2)
Viewpoint gave away several models at SigGraph. Beethoven was one of them, along with 57Chevy, Al The Gangster, etc.
That pink 57Chevy model going around? I colored that from the original .obj file. I wonder if this ruling means I'm suddenly a millionaire.
Re: (Score:2)
yes they gave it away after a point, but used to want several hundred dollars for that model, untextured and all that. i'm just saying it's really difficult to protect a wireframe.
Convert ALL data into wireframe models NOW! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Convert ALL data into wireframe models NOW! (Score:5, Funny)
Audiophiles rejoice!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I would actually love to see this done.
Re: (Score:2)
It has already been done:
Digital Needle - A Virtual Gramophone [huji.ac.il]
Re: (Score:2)
That's not quite the same thing, though it is cool. This person scanned some records and then optically converted those scans to sound.
What was suggested here was someone make a 3-D model of a record (with grooves) and a 3-D model of a record player, that interact with each other in such a way that it actually works.
Re: (Score:2)
I will kill whomever you desire if you can actually create that.
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".
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)
Re: (Score:2)
The footage they use from the official congress cameras isn't covered, but some of their own footage is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cspan#C-SPAN_and_Copyright [wikipedia.org]
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: (Score:1)
Re:open source 3D MMORPG (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
To back you up, the court's ruling was essentially that this crossed the line and can not really be considered art inspired by the car. They were so meticulous that the models are more like a technical description of the car, and is not subject to copyright; it's data, not a creative work.
Had they been less precise, this would not be the case.
Scanned books (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, except the easiest way to actually do that is to bribe the US government.
Why do you think Mickey Mouse [wikipedia.org] is still copyrighted?
The headline is confusing (Score:1)
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. From the article, it sounds like Toyota re-used the wireframes over and over and the company sued. But if the company has the equivalent copyright to a photograph, then they should win. Toyota would have to license each distribution of the copy. That doesn't mean that all possible wire frames of those cars are owned by the
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.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
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 can be copyrightable, but it doesn't mean that all photographs necessarily are copyrightable.
The central issue for copyrightability is creativity; did the author actually originate the work in question, and is it creative? If the work did not originate with the author, but was instead just copied from somewhere, or i
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
Re:So... What does this hold for the "Coke bottle" (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who wants to cash in on the "trendiness" of the Prius. The unusual shape is probably 50% responsible for the popularity of the Prius. It looks different, so someone looking at it knows it's a hybrid. Unlike the Civic, (now discontinued) Accord, Escape, Camry, and Highlander hybrids. Those may be better cars, and may look better, but they don't scream out "I'm a Hybrid, I'm cool!" the way the Prius does. (To some people, anyway.)
Re: (Score:1)
Also, it's a well-known marketing ploy to flaunt a negative characteristic of a product as proof that it's really good (e.g. bad tasting cough syrup). The Prius would be easier to dismiss if it was just ordinary looking. Then to many
Re: (Score:2)
That was my point exactly. Regardless of wether the viewer considers the look good or bad, it is distinctive. And it is the distinctiveness that is partly responsible for its popularity.
You see it, you *KNOW* it's a "trendy hybrid". (Watch out for that smug, though.)
Disclaimer: I am a Prius driver, but I got mine before it was "trendy", and bought it about 50% for the environment, 50% for the technology. Money savings was never a factor in my calculations, and "coolness" wasn't, either. (I promptly sho
Re:So... What does this hold for the "Coke bottle" (Score:2)
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.
Limbo of the Lost... (Score:1)
Just in time for 'Limbo of the Lost' (developed by Majestic and sold in the U.S by Tri Synergy), I guess, since all the buildings/etc. are models?
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/06/18/1938223 [slashdot.org]
CAD projects (Score:1)
So... what would this mean for companies with architects, mechanical engineers, and anyone else who use computers to model/design parts for everything from automobiles to buildings?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they're simply digitizing someone else's design, they can't copyright it.
But they aren't "Simply digitizing it". That would be like using a file converter.
The wireframe of an object is an exceedingly creative task--one in which two people would never create even a relatively simple object identically twice. This would be like saying a very accurate drawing of a car is not copyrightable. 3D models are as much a creative representation as a painting or rendering of a car. It just happens to be 3D.
Hitting "Render" according to the judge all of a sudden makes it a creati
Re: (Score:2)
That's the key question -- was the process of creating these models at least minimally creative?
I don't think you can say it wasn't just because they tried to be as accurate as possible. If I try to make a portrait of you that's as accurate as possible, the accuracy doesn't eliminate my copyright, even if I'm a very good artist.
That two people wouldn't do it the same doesn't mean much. Two people who go to the same concert, record the audio, and compress it to MP3 will not produce identical files. But I don
They tried to copyright the wrong thing (Score:1)
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.
possible counter-argument (Score:2)
Besides, it's a rather dubious ruling in general. How close must the wireframe be to count as an exact model? Where's the line between exact recreation and sufficient modification? I'm not proficient enough in US law, but in Germany, whatever you create something in whatever medium has your copyr
Re: (Score:2)
I think this decision could have gone the other way. In the court's opinion what the modelers did was not even minimally creative. Another court might disagree.
Aside: The contract was not at issue here. However, if Toyota paid the full cost for someone to create a wireframe model of one of their cars and did not require the copyright to be assigned back to them, someone didn't do their job very well.
someone needs to RTFA (Score:2)
here's how this is utterly stupid in many ways:
1st, toyota already has 3d models of its vehicles because they FUCKING DESIGNED THEM!
2nd, meshwerx could have just employed workers skilled enough to make duplicates from photos.
3rd, even if they had used photos, the copyrights would be nil because it's a derivative work of a copyrighted photo.
4th, meshwerx is pretty stupid to think they they owned the 3d mesh of a vehicle they didn't design.
5th, they should have sued for breach of contract, if it was a breach
Oh you people (Score:2)
This sounds like a win-win situation to me! Damn, people, do you have to be all "it's mine, so I get to let it fall to ruin and forbid you from using it, just because I can" all the time?
Sculpture (Score:2)
Bringing this into the physical world, this decision seems to imply that there is less artistry in a lifelike sculpture than one that is warped or otherwise stylized. In that light, the question seems to be whether craftsmanship (the ability and effort to create a lifelike replica) and artistry (less well defined but protected by copyright) are equivalent. Failure of craftsmanship has traditionally been passed off as artistry, but I don't think I've ever seen people punished for displaying a level of craf
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 summary may be correct, but it's silly. Who care whether or not modelers can prevent others from copying their work? It's not the modelers you have to worry about. It's much more serious that Toyota can prevent a modeler from copying and distributing his own work, isn't it?
Re:Why didn't Toyota's ad firm just ask for the CA (Score:2)
Trade secrets, most likely. I know that anyone doing BMW ads gets the CATIA files, but they're locked down in biohazard-grade NDAs.