I modeled this from an actual desk back in 2000.  I know it's 
commonplace to model from real-life-objects and then share those models, 
but does anyone have any thoughts or insights on industrial design rights?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_design_rights

Thanks,
Charles

PS Yes I know I know... It's r/h, z-up.  That's easy enough to change er 
'fix' with a negative scale and a rotate  :P

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'a desk.png' (161 KB)

Preview of image 'a desk.png'

Anybody?   Did I ask a bad question?

Post a reply to this message

"Charles C" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message 
news:web.471596c23cfdc2e9cf9b2e370@news.povray.org...
> Anybody?   Did I ask a bad question?

      No, not at all Charles. My take on it is that I wouldn't want to pass 
on something that is 'exact' in dimension to the original. So I would 
probably make the drawers wider/narrower, or just have a deep file drawer to 
the left, or maybe just a cupboard to the left and no drawers.

     ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:4715e1e9$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "Charles C" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message 
> news:web.471596c23cfdc2e9cf9b2e370@news.povray.org...
>> Anybody?   Did I ask a bad question?
>
>      No, not at all Charles. My take on it is that I wouldn't want to pass 
> on something that is 'exact' in dimension to the original. So I would 
> probably make the drawers wider/narrower, or just have a deep file drawer 
> to the left, or maybe just a cupboard to the left and no drawers.
>
>     ~Steve~
>

Hi Charles,

I agree with Steve, it's not a bad question, but I think we're a bit short 
of lawyers on this newsgroup. Maybe law, art and mathematics isn't a popular 
combination at college.

Myself I'm not a lawyer and, in general, this sort of law can get pretty 
complicated. In addition to protection afforded to manufacturers/designers 
under industrial design rights (which I hadn't read about before) there are 
copyright laws and patents to consider (all of which can also vary from 
country to country). On the other hand, I believe that, although things get 
more complex with products that have highly distinct/unique characteristics, 
they can be less complex with a more commonplace object like this sort of 
desk.

The basic layout of this desk doesn't seem to me to have anything 
particularly unique about it and I suspect that anything sufficiently 
different from the products of other manufacturers (to be covered by these 
laws) may well be mechanical rather than predominantly visual in nature. 
With ornate furniture you could run into problems if you copied intricate 
and unique decorative designs or another unique style attribute, but I 
suspect you're on safer ground with something relatively commonplace that 
doesn't have many unique characteristics.

You should look at your desk (the real one) and see whether there's anything 
that looks particularly unique that could potentially be covered by design 
rights and avoid duplicating that (any unique bevels/profiles, trademarks, 
logos, uniquely designed fixtures etc). I also agree with Steve that it 
depends how exact you've been in copying the dimensions, colours and 
textures etc. and it may be wise to make sure that they're not identical to 
the original, so that your design is as distinct as would be the design of 
another manufacturer of similar desks (though you'll find that many 
dimensions are pretty well standard anyway).

Hope this helps.

Regards,
Chris B.

Post a reply to this message

Charles C wrote:
> Anybody?   Did I ask a bad question?
> 

I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. My experience is only
with USA photography law, and even then it's only what I've read in books.

Now, that's out of the way. This is one place where photography law
really should be a good guide for copyright law, but it isn't yet. If I
own a desk and take a picture of my desk for some collage, there is no
problem. If I used that picture in an advertising campaign for something
else, say a chair, there could be a problem as they might believe I'm
portraying their desk in a bad light. I realize there is not a lot of
difference between those two, but that seems to be where the line is
drawn for copyright of an object. In the first, the desk is simply an
object that is used for some artistic purpose while in the second case
it's being used as a desk for the commercial gain of someone else.

The real test, at least for photography, is recognizability. Would the
average person, looking at the picture of that desk and an actual
version of that desk, believe that there was no possible way that you
created the picture from something else. This goes for just about
anything, from buildings, to people, even to pets. Again, there is a
problem here. It's not a protection, it's just a defense. If someone
thinks you took a picture of them walking down the street and used it
for a commercial purpose without their consent, they can sue. Saying
that you can not recognize them in the picture will no keep you out of
court* if they believe otherwise. Saying to a jury that 'all you can see
is a human shape, a black t-shirt and jeans.' how ever is a defense and
a reason to avoid having to pay anything other then your lawyer.

The last case is just the switching of media. Say I buy a reproduction
of a sculpture and photograph it. I wouldn't sell that as a commercial
photo, as I do not have the release of the owner. There is a photography
case where someone took a picture of several puppies, sold posters of
that picture, and later someone else made a sculpture using those
posters as a reference. It was ruled copyright infringement, since the
picture was used as a guide and not just as inspiration. It is still
infringement if your sole inspiration was another artist's work.

I look at that desk, and I see one that looks a bit like my work desk.
Maybe it looks like one my father has too. But put your picture beside
one of the real desk and see if they look identical. Then see if your
picture looks identical to desks made by someone else. Since it doesn't
look like a designer art piece masquerading as furniture, I'd say you
could find a dozen different desks that look close enough that no one
could say which one you used for inspiration.


*USA legal system note: It might not keep you out of court even if it
was demonstratively not them in the picture. You could have a model
release from another person, and plenty of notes saying that it was
someone else in the picture, but any person can sue for just about any
reason if they have enough money to keep a lawyer around.

Post a reply to this message

I don't think a render of a design is any more of an issue than a photo of 
the real thing.

I believe the law is there to protect the rights of the designer, so you do 
not want to distribute a model which involves description of materials, 
detailed dimensions, plans... in short the wherewithal to reproduce the item 
in question.
So is a model a design?

This desk appears utilitarian and remarkably unadorned.
The only obvious distinguishing feature is the front edge bevel. Is it a 
moulding? Is the surface a PVC laminate or paintwork on particle board or 
steel? These things would be the stuff of design, and your model is probably 
not a CAD model with material specifications so much as a surface shell.

So my non-expert opinion is publish your model with attribution to your 
sources and disclaim any intent to infringe the design rights (if any) of 
the manufacturer, but don't publish a design.
Perhaps a comment in the model file will suffice. And claim copyright to the 
model to limit any possible downstream misuse. Imagine the 'made in 
Shanghai' Charles C. desk.

DLM

Post a reply to this message

Steve, Chris, Sabrina, DLM,
Thanks for the well thought out responses!

It's really easy to change dimensions on this model since almost all 
dimensions are parameterized and/or/sometimes related to other 
dimensions. Of course it could end up looking a little funny. See 
attached.  :-)

The real desk is one that somebody used at a former employer of mine. 
During breaks I'd go around measuring things to feed my POV enthusiasm 
at home.* This desk seemed like a nice target since it lends itself well 
to primitive based modeling.  Years later I saw a slightly updated (they 
changed the drawer handle, and reduced the radius on the drawer bevels) 
version of this desk in a store.  I couldn't believe I was looking at 
somethig so ordinary and plain yet obscure and familiar to me.  The new 
handle was probably anodized aluminum in an arc shape with a radius 
which gets thicker in the middle... i.e. a shere sweep and 2 cylinders 
that hold it to the drawer-face.

I think almost all of this desk is partical board. - It has a noticable 
seam in the very-thin lamination just above the bevel on the top.   The 
style of the drawer faces with those top/bottom round bevels seems like 
something I've seen on any number of cabinets...

I've found the manufacturer.  I guess they still make this desk and even 
a wood-grain version of it.  Now I'm trying to figure out if it'd be 
worth contacting them and if that would make things sticky for no 
reason.  I doubt if they have anybody there who's been asked this kind 
of question before.  I could be wrong but I have a feeling manufacturers 
of scale model airplanes don't get permission from the manufacturers of 
the real ones.

Charles


*...and because things got re-arranged there *so* often that I thought 
'what if I made a 3D model of this place to make it easier?'.


PS  Currently I have the text "Desk design is presumed copyright of the 
manufacturer.  Model is copyrighted by me." at the top of the file.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'a messed up desk.jpg' (58 KB)

Preview of image 'a messed up desk.jpg'

Charles C wrote:
> I could be wrong but I have a feeling manufacturers
> of scale model airplanes don't get permission from the manufacturers of
> the real ones.

They most certainly do. For example, all the major military airplanes
from WWII on are copyrighted by their manufacturers. You will get in BIG
trouble for making and selling toys of those planes without a license.
In fact, certain military contractors make almost as much off of
licensing toys as they do off the government. 8-|

(Interesting detour here: In Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost
Arc, the filmmakers went out of their way to make their German plane not
look anything like any real planes, so they wouldn't have to pay royalties.)

Now, I'm not a lawyer, but I doubt that you're going to get into trouble
over your desk. It's not particularly distinctive, and you're
(presumably) not going to use any of the manufacturer's trademarked
names along with this thing ("office desk" is very different from "P-51
Mustang fighter aircraft").

If you're going to sell images based off this thing, though, it probably
is prudent to play on the safe side. Tweak the design to look distinctly
different, or get some written permission from the manufacturer.

-- 
William Tracy
afi### [at] gmailcom -- wtr### [at] calpolyedu

You know you've been raytracing too long when your POV-Ray manual is on
the same shelf with your Bible (or Koran, or Torah).

Post a reply to this message