Chris B wrote:
> IMO that's more tricky because your model is a copy of another computer 
> model.

Plus, the lamp *is* Pixar's trademark, and now you're not talking about 
a computer image infringing on the trademark of a lamp manufacturer, but 
a computer image infringing on the trademark of a computer image 
manufacturer. That makes it much less clear it's easily resolved.

> 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. 

I think if it's close enough you say "That's the Pixar lamp", then 
you're infringing. If you took the ball out, it probably wouldn't 
infringe.  If you made it hop around even without the ball, it probably 
would.

I'm still not a lawyer, tho.  (But my lawyer makes me say that. ;-)

-- 
   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