yacc

[Synide 0]

-->> <a href="http://ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/06/06-4222.pdf" target="_blank">UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT - 06-4222.pdf</a>

An interesting read none the less, it relates to 3d content copyright...

[.kju 3240]

Quote[/b] ]This case calls on us to apply copyright principles to a relatively new

technology: digital modeling. Meshwerks insists that, contrary to the district

court’s summary judgment determination, its digital models of Toyota cars and

trucks are sufficiently original to warrant copyright protection. Meshwerks’

models, which form the base layers of computerized substitutes for product

photographs in advertising, are unadorned, digital wire-frames of Toyota’s

vehicles. While fully appreciating that digital media present new frontiers for

copyrightable creative expression, in this particular case the uncontested facts

reveal that Meshwerks’ models owe their designs and origins to Toyota and

deliberately do not include anything original of their own; accordingly, we hold

that Meshwerks’ models are not protected by copyright and affirm.

[Wolfrug 0]

Quote[/b] ]Originality is the sine qua non of copyright. If the basic design reflected in a work of art does not owe its origin to the putative copyright holder, then that person must add something original to that design, and then only the original addition may be copyrighted. In this case, Meshwerks copied Toyota’s designs in creating digital, wire-frame models of Toyota’s vehicles. But the models reflect, that is, “express,†no more than the depiction of the vehicles as vehicles. The designs of the vehicles, however, owe their origins to Toyota, not to Meshwerks, and so we are unable to reward Meshwerks’ digital wire-frame models, no doubt the product of significant labor, skill, and judgment, with copyright protection. The judgment of the district court is affirmed, and defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees is denied.

I read (most) of this little case, and it seems like some of you modellers are in trouble Although interestingly I'd say that the LESS skilled you are the better chance you have of having the right to your own creations. I.e., if you create a poor copy of a hummer, you can claim you were exercising your creativity in creating the model car, as opposed to slavishly copying it :P

This probably applies to other things than just models though. Meshwerk didn't add any textures or other things to their models, so they were pretty bare boned, whereas most modellers out there probably create fully textured and mapped creations. However, if you're "slavishly copying" for instance the regulation paintjob of an US army HMMVW, can you still claim copyright? (or for that matter slavishly copying the pattern of for instance ACU, Marpat, etc., which are the intellectual property of their parent companies).

What about game models? What about BIS' "copies" of army equipment? I'd suppose in this case however there's a lot more to it: they've made the models work in their own proprietary game engine, added configs and all the bells and whistles to their models, which are also encoded in their own format (not that I know if that makes any difference), and outside of the game they wouldn't "work" in the same way (shading techniques, texture application, format...). Besides, the models are shown in the game world, which expresses a lot more than just wireframe models.

Still, that leaves all of those people over at TurboSquid sitting on their perfectly modelled Toyotas wondering if they actually have the right to claim copyright on their creations.

Lucky though the US ain't the whole world, eh. Wonder what copyright laws say in other parts of the world...

Interesting topic!

Regards,

Wolfrug

[Baff1 0]

Nothing copied can hold a copywright. Slavishly or otherwise.

Copywright is not a reward for hard work or the amount time it took to create a model of someone elses design.

Intrestingly that wasn't a district court in the U.S., that was the Supreme court.

You can expect the rest of the world to follow the precedent. The U.S. is both a primary market and a primary supplier of digitally copywrighted material.

Our laws in Europe tend to be identical to theirs in these regards. As I expect them to be in Asia also.

[shinRaiden 0]

lolwut? need to find the original filing but there seems to be some "wah!" going on.

Summary :

* Toyota hired Saatchi & Saatchi to do advertising.

* S&S hired Meshwerks to make super-exact models for TV commercials.

* Meshwerks hired Grace & Wild to do the actual modeling.

* The next year, S&S contracted G&W directly instead of via MW.

* MW has an emo-fest "mehbe we can has copyright for what we did not make for what we do not own?!"

(sorry, insomnia commentary going, ianal etc-etc...)

* I.B.3 MW was hired to visualize, rather than conceptualize existing Toyota IP. epic fail at the starting block.

* Granting summary judgment often implies "duh you idiots, why you wasting the court's time? I fine you for being stupid"

* 2.0.1 notes the perspective of US law, which, under the innocent until proven guilty orientation, also puts a substantial burden of proof on the accuser. While vital for just due process, in the case of civil law is easily exploited by those that can afford to stall just a little longer than the plaintiff can afford to litigate.

* Imho, there's nothing really to worry about at least from this case, based on the comments made in 2.C. In fact, the judge says so :

Quote[/b] ]For this reason, we do not envision any

“chilling effect†on creative expression based on our holding today, and instead

see it as applying to digital modeling the same legal principles that have come, in

the fullness of time and with an enlightened eye, to apply to photographs and

other media.

* The only part of the decision I'd question is this footnote :

Quote[/b] ]Neither are we presented with evidence suggesting that Meshwerks’ motivation in filing this suit was anything other than sincere.

Again, imho, it looks rather petty and sour grapes to me given the context given in the opening summary. This wasn't initiated by Toyota or an affiliated party, it was a desperate retaliatory response by a subcontractor not re-invited for moar cake.

Now in regards to the copy right factors, imho, the amount of addons here that actually seek to faithfully replicate a given item is ... substantially less than the amount of content that is an interpretive and arguably unique work. Even the BAS content in OFP, with its interpretive representation of a stylization "as-used" as opposed to "as-built" would imho come under this category. This case however does not deal with the subject of trademarks, eg Colt et. al's M4 complaints, or the greater domain of copyright licensed works such as MGM's claims over commercial exploitation of it's SG IP domain. (btw, I'm hearing rumor's the dev studio for the SG MMO is funded by a borderline ponzi scheme run by a bunch of shady folks that have had their fingers in similar stunts previous).

I think there definitely is room for commercial exploitation of interpretive works, and that that is helped, not hindered, by this ruling. As an aside, most of the major (at least US-based) defense industry megacorps have extensive licensing groups within their legal departments and representation, and the interest of some of those parties in financially exploiting the gaming cash cow is indicative if you stick around for the credits in various recent games. I think though that there's some space between interpretive works and direct replication as far as commercial exploitation goes.