Pretty interesting.....
-
-
For those thinking to themselves "WTF?!"
@unknownuser said:
Digital modeling
Meshwerks loses copyright appeal
Court rules Utah firm's creations are more copies than originals.Hired to create depictions of Toyota vehicles for the automotive giant's advertising campaign, a small Utah company used the relatively new technology of digital modeling.
After 80 to 100 hours of effort per vehicle, Meshwerks produced two-dimensional, wire-frame depictions that appeared three-dimensional on screen. The idea was to create a product that resembled each car or truck model as closely as possible for use on the Toyota Web site and in other media.
The resulting unadorned images, which had no color, shading nor other details, were accurate. So accurate that a federal court has ruled the depictions have no right to copyright protection.
In an opinion handed down Tuesday, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the models owe their designs to Toyota - not to the Meshwerks personnel who labored to produce the digital images but added nothing original to them....
-
..... so the closer one's 3D model is to the Real Thing the
less are the chances of gaining copyright protection! -
This same case was raised a week or so ago in anothet thread. I think what it comes down to is the description of how Meshworks actually modelled the vehicle. It wasn't from a photo or CAD plans or any such reference; it was putting a grid all over the actual vehicles.
In doing so....as the court decided...they added nothing new to the original that could be copyrighted.
Personally, I find that a little harsh, as a photograph does essentially the same thing...but I guess it depends on exactly what reproduction rights were negotiated.I don't think it has any bearing at all on the "freehand" modelling that most of us are involved with.
-
The good thing here is the precedent...if someone snarfs your DNA of the street: you still hold the copyright!
-
I think that in essence this could be solved contractually when the project begins by stating within that original contract what the rights of the contractor and client are in relation to images produced.
By explicitly laying this out in the original agreement it does a number of things:Instigates the discussion about rights at the offset of the project so that everyone understands where they stand, and it is at this point both can negotiate.
Clarifies to the client that no matter what method the contractor uses to attain the image, they still hold some rights to the image.
Lays out what those rights are for both parties.
If it comes to litigation for some reason, the Judge would have information regarding what agreements had been discussed by the two parties, which could in fact affect the decision.I too don't think this ruling would stand up in the scrutiny of an appeal, but the lesson here is to not assume that you have rights over images you have created without actually attempting to assure that you do,
-
"CC holds all ownership of models (meshes) and all textures used in final product unless arrangements have been made with CC to purchase final models (meshes) at and additional cost to the above quoted."
The above is part of the legal agreement that I have ALL clients sign. I have never had an issue with it yet.
Scott
-
I'm thinking that Toyota is black marking themselves.
-
@unknownuser said:
"CC holds all ownership of models (meshes) and all textures used in final product unless arrangements have been made with CC to purchase final models (meshes) at and additional cost to the above quoted."
The above is part of the legal agreement that I have ALL clients sign. I have never had an issue with it yet.
Scott
And this, for me, is what the issue rests on.
Did Toyota agree a deal with Meshworks to produce the model for this one campaign, or did Toyota contract them to produce the models so that they can be used whenever Toyota wished.
I'm struggling over whether this case is about copyright of 3D models or whether it's a contract dispute between Meshworks and Toyota.
-
@unknownuser said:
I agree Todd.....I have a whole new opinion now. I love their vehicles and I have owned and driven many for many miles. They just fell off my list of good cars.
-
I think Dale is correct that it really boils down to the contract between Toyota and the modeler. I can see the courts reasoning behind this. Toyota designed the automobiles, and therefor owns the rights to those designs. The modeler basically copied Toyota's designs exactly - too exactly to claim any artistic license by the modeler. The fact that the modeler was also hired by Toyota is also a factor.
I think this analogous to the architectural profession. The architect of record retains the intellectual rights to any design he/she produces. The client cannot use that design at another site or for another project without the architect's permission. And another architect cannot make an exact copy and pass it off as their own.
-
Just what I was thinking, Daniel...and pushing that point: since I'm paid to model his building for him, the model is his too. But: I retain ownership of anything I add to the model, like my trees and such...and I tell them so beforehand.
(This brings to mind another question: if I were to subscribe to FF and use their stuff, would I then not be able to give my models to my clients?)
-
No, I'm afraid you couldn't, Tom...not unless it was made very clear that they could not cannibalize such a model for their own use.
In that respect, FormFonts is absolutely no different from any other content provider. Even on sites where you buy the stuff outright (such as Turbosquid or Lowpolygon3D), as opposed to subscribing to its use, the Terms of Use make it very clear that you cannot pass on such material to any 3rd party. They are for visuals only. Anything else would be exactly the same as buying a copy of software, such as ACAD and passing that on.
-
@tomsdesk said:
Just what I was thinking, Daniel...and pushing that point: since I'm paid to model his building for him, the model is his too. But: I retain ownership of anything I add to the model, like my trees and such...and I tell them so beforehand.
(This brings to mind another question: if I were to subscribe to FF and use their stuff, would I then not be able to give my models to my clients?)
That's the main reason I wish SU would provide password protection.
-
-
Dale, thanks...seems I might have some right to most of the work I produce for others: except, all my work is work for hire (as I understand that phrase...and why I say in advance "you ain't payin' for the trees and such").
Does the same document you quoted have a good definition of "work for hire"?
(Alan, just as I thought...the reason I went off makin' components myself: since my clients so far have expected a model to look at with SUViewer or GoogleFree.)
-
[quote="tomsdesk"]Dale, thanks...seems I might have some right to most of the work I produce for others: except, all my work is work for hire (as I understand that phrase...and why I say in advance "you ain't payin' for the trees and such").
Does the same document you quoted have a good definition of "work for hire"?
This link addresses "Work for hire" issues, under the new 1990 U.S. copyright law. I believe that if you have contractually agreed not to give up your rights that you are protected. There are some AIA statutes that address this as well I believe.
-
So... when you're no longer subscribed to FF you're supposed to delete the models or what?
-
I tihnk thats the idea, although obviously its not very enforcable.
Advertisement