Not perfect, but here's an old model ca. 2002.  It's fun to revisit old scenes
with an order of magnitude more computing power.  It's all CSG with inverse
kinematics, although meshes would be much faster.  Just a macro with about
seven parameters to place and orient the lamp.  Can something like this be
posted to the object collection, or would someone feel the need to go alert the
lawyers?

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'fluxo.jpg' (73 KB)

Preview of image 'fluxo.jpg'

"triple_r" <rre### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Not perfect, but here's an old model ca. 2002.  It's fun to revisit old scenes
> with an order of magnitude more computing power.  It's all CSG with inverse
> kinematics, although meshes would be much faster.  Just a macro with about
> seven parameters to place and orient the lamp.  Can something like this be
> posted to the object collection, or would someone feel the need to go alert the
> lawyers?
>
>  - Ricky

Nice model!  I think your depth of field is too narrow in this render, however.

Post a reply to this message

"triple_r" <rre### [at] hotmailcom> schreef in bericht 
news:web.47f78d1139c5fd58ae42298f0@news.povray.org...
> Not perfect, but here's an old model ca. 2002.  It's fun to revisit old 
> scenes
> with an order of magnitude more computing power.  It's all CSG with 
> inverse
> kinematics, although meshes would be much faster.  Just a macro with about
> seven parameters to place and orient the lamp.  Can something like this be
> posted to the object collection, or would someone feel the need to go 
> alert the
> lawyers?
>

Very nice! But indeed, like Kirk said, increase the depth of field.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Kirk Andrews" <kir### [at] tektonartcom> wrote:

> Nice model!  I think your depth of field is too narrow in this render, however.

Thanks.  And you're absolutely right.  Realized this after the fact, but of
course hindsight is 20/20.  This is closer to 20/40.

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

"triple_r" <rre### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message 
news:web.47f78d1139c5fd58ae42298f0@news.povray.org...
> Not perfect, but here's an old model ca. 2002.  It's fun to revisit old 
> scenes
> with an order of magnitude more computing power.  It's all CSG with 
> inverse
> kinematics, although meshes would be much faster.  Just a macro with about
> seven parameters to place and orient the lamp.  Can something like this be
> posted to the object collection, or would someone feel the need to go 
> alert the
> lawyers?

Hi Ricky,

Nice model.
I imagine that the question arises because you've copied a real lamp quite 
precisely.

I'm not a lawyer, but previous discussions here have lead me to think it 
comes down to how unique and distinct the object is. There are lots of 
manufacturers of this sort of lamp out there and the basic design dates back 
a long way, so I doubt there's still a patent outstanding on the basic 
design.

If this particular lamp has anything unique and distinct about it that the 
manufacturer could claim as their own design, then it might be worth simply 
reworking those particular components to a design of your own.

Regards,
Chris B.

Post a reply to this message

Chris B wrote:
> I imagine that the question arises because you've copied a real lamp quite 
> precisely.

http://www.pixar.com/shorts/ljr/

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

If things really do go wrong, your driver may find itself having to 
reset or perform other acts of violence against one of its devices.
     -- Linux Device Drivers, Third Edition

Post a reply to this message

William Tracy <wtr### [at] calpolyedu> wrote:
> Chris B wrote:
> > I imagine that the question arises because you've copied a real lamp quite
> > precisely.
>
> http://www.pixar.com/shorts/ljr/

Indeed.  Pixar copied a lamp quite precisely.  I copied a trademark.  Hmm.  All
I could get out of Wikipedia is that fair use means I can depict a trademark to
refer to the owner, but I haven't a clue as to what that means in this context.

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

triple_r wrote:
> I can depict a trademark to refer to the owner, 

That means you can use the McDonald's trademark if you're actually 
talking about McDonald's, but not to imply that someone else is McDonald's.

> but I haven't a clue as to what that means in this context.

In the US? Nothing. You're not trading, hence trademarks are irrelevant. 
You're not implying anything about the light, nor that you got it 
anywhere.  The whole topic is pretty irrelevant.

If you hand-painted the McDonald's logo as a work of art and hung it on 
your wall, McDonald's wouldn't have anything to say about that either.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New napsal(a):
> triple_r wrote:
>> I can depict a trademark to refer to the owner, 
> 
> That means you can use the McDonald's trademark if you're actually 
> talking about McDonald's, but not to imply that someone else is McDonald's.
> 
>> but I haven't a clue as to what that means in this context.
> 
> In the US? Nothing. You're not trading, hence trademarks are irrelevant. 
> You're not implying anything about the light, nor that you got it 
> anywhere.  The whole topic is pretty irrelevant.
> 
> If you hand-painted the McDonald's logo as a work of art and hung it on 
> your wall, McDonald's wouldn't have anything to say about that either.
> 
I've got a question if the same applies to copyrights:
Can I replicate a monopoly game (w/ or w/o mr. monopoly) even though the 
board design (placement of the properties and their names) is copyrighted?
What if the result wins an IRTC round? Will I have to pay Hasbro^(c) a 
tribute?

-- 
the ultimate time-killer:
+a0.0 +am2 +r9

Johnny D

Post a reply to this message

"triple_r" <rre### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message 
news:web.47f8098fd70e611bae42298f0@news.povray.org...
> William Tracy <wtr### [at] calpolyedu> wrote:
>> Chris B wrote:
>> > I imagine that the question arises because you've copied a real lamp 
>> > quite
>> > precisely.
>>
>> http://www.pixar.com/shorts/ljr/
>
> Indeed.  Pixar copied a lamp quite precisely.  I copied a trademark.  Hmm.
>

Ahh! I should've noticed that :-)
IMO that's more tricky because your model is a copy of another computer 
model.

For you to post it into the POV-Ray object collection you need to have the 
right to grant a CC-LGPL license over the model to authorise others to use, 
copy, adapt and redistribute.  My guess would be that you don't have that 
exclusive right.

OTOH, because it's a form that was extremely common both in the real world 
and in art before Pixar used it, I don't think a model of a lamp would have 
to be hugely different from the Pixar one for the author to be able to claim 
complete ownership of their model. Aspects that could be unique to Pixar are 
the precise profiles of the base and the lampshade and the shapes of the 
joints. Also, the relative dimensions of the 'baby' lamp could distinguise 
this particular lamp (in particular if these don't match any real-world 
lamps).

Regards,
Chris B.

Post a reply to this message