 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 13:57:58 -0800, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbell net> wrote:
>I say "Let your conscience your guide".
You forgot "(TM) Walt Disney Studios" after that little quote from
Pinocchio :)
Bill Fleming wrote me back:
+----------------
| No. You only need permission if you plan to sell the work and then it's
| onle necessary if the object isthe main focus of the work. If the
| battery is a background element like the image in the article it's no
| problem. The robot is the main focus. He has a familiar Swiss Army knife
| for a hand but that again isn't a problem since it's only a part of him.
+----------------
I'm not sure whether I believe this or not, especially since it's
one of the top ten myths, but I would have thought he'd done his
research; after all, he's used the image in question for profit at
least three times, by my count.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ron Parker wrote:
>
> I have a question about both IRTC procedure and perhaps a bit
> of copyright law. I don't expect definitive answers, but I also
> don't want to get anyone in trouble with my entry. So...
>
> One of the principles of photorealistic rendering, according
> to Bill Fleming (www.serious3d.com) is to use familiar objects.
> In his example scene he uses some Energizer batteries, a
> Fujifilm disposable camera, and a book that looks like it
> was scanned from life. My question is, what is the legality
> of this? Is it legal, for example, to take the label off a
> can of soup, scan it, and use the scanned image as an imagemap
> on a modeled can of soup?
>
> This is actually two separate questions:
>
> 1) Is it legal to do this at all, regardless of what I
> plan to do with the image, without getting explicit
> releases from the companies whose artwork I'm using?
> (The question wouldn't bear considering except that
> we're talking about art. Did Andy Warhol have to get
> Campbell's to sign something? Do artists who work
> in collage have to be careful what they use lest they
> trip over intellectual property laws?)
>
> 2) Assuming it is legal to do this in the art world,
> is it legal in IRTC?
>
> As I said, I don't expect definitive answers, and I'll pose
> the first question to Mr. Fleming myself, but I'm interested
> in any opinions the readers of this group might have.
Copyright law isn't really the issue in this case. You want to consider
trademark law, a whole 'nother thing. Collages, etc are generally safe, but use
as a major theme (or by itself) can be a problem (i.e. the previously cited day
care center). Acknowledging the tm in the text file probably wouldn't hurt.
The big things are not using it to compete with the trademark holder, not
disparaging the trademark holder or his product (except for "satire" - at your
own risk) and above all, not genericizing the trademark (don't say "xerox" when
you mean "copy", for example). Genericizing, if too common, can take away the
trademark-ness of the word or symbol, as happened to "aspirin" among others and
corporate lawyers watch for that sort of thing.
As to the IRTC, the admins don't censor images. They ask you not to get them in
trouble, but it is up to you to know how to comply. There have been images in
the past, quite frequently in fact, that used trademarks and copyright material,
often in a definitely actionable way (for example a "fan art" Batman image in
the Night round). Fan art is *NOT* "fair use" and can cause you or the IRTC
trouble. OTOH, a real soup can on a kitchen counter with other objects that is
not the point of the image should be no problem. In any case, the image would
be allowed in, but some judges may be uncomfortable (and grade accordingly) if a
usage looks legally questionable.
Jerry Anning
cle### [at] dholcom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Now, according to other posts here, If I decide to use a theme based on or including
copyrighted material, I have to get permission from the author.
And the IRTC won't complain in any way either, but.... Ah, I'll just have to get
permission.
is this it ?
//Spider
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Spider <spi### [at] bahnhofse> wrote:
: Now, according to other posts here, If I decide to use a theme based on or including
: copyrighted material, I have to get permission from the author.
Does this also mean that if I made an image about povray, I have to ask
for permission to the povteam?-)
--
main(i){char*_="BdsyFBThhHFBThhHFRz]NFTITQF|DJIFHQhhF";while(i=
*_++)for(;i>1;printf("%s",i-70?i&1?"[]":" ":(i=0,"\n")),i/=2);} /*- Warp. -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Not sure, but I have been working on a theme from a copyrighted material...
I'll just have to find some adress to the people...
//Spider
Nieminen Mika wrote:
>
> Spider <spi### [at] bahnhofse> wrote:
> : Now, according to other posts here, If I decide to use a theme based on or
including
> : copyrighted material, I have to get permission from the author.
>
> Does this also mean that if I made an image about povray, I have to ask
> for permission to the povteam?-)
>
> --
> main(i){char*_="BdsyFBThhHFBThhHFRz]NFTITQF|DJIFHQhhF";while(i=
> *_++)for(;i>1;printf("%s",i-70?i&1?"[]":" ":(i=0,"\n")),i/=2);} /*- Warp. -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Clearly Bill is wrong. But the question is highly nontrivial.
Consider a photograph -- must I seek permission of all those
who have proprietary material captured in the image? Is
a raytracing different than a photograph?
It isn't at all obvious to me there is a problem with using
commercial logos in tracings. I would say if a photograph
of the same scene is okay, the tracing should be okay. Would a photograph
of a coke can be permissible?
Dan
Ron Parker wrote:
> Bill Fleming wrote me back:
>
> +----------------
> | No. You only need permission if you plan to sell the work and then it's
> | onle necessary if the object isthe main focus of the work. If the
> | battery is a background element like the image in the article it's no
> | problem. The robot is the main focus. He has a familiar Swiss Army knife
> | for a hand but that again isn't a problem since it's only a part of him.
> +----------------
>
> I'm not sure whether I believe this or not, especially since it's
> one of the top ten myths, but I would have thought he'd done his
> research; after all, he's used the image in question for profit at
> least three times, by my count.
--
http://www.flash.net/~djconnel/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dan Connelly wrote:
>
> Clearly Bill is wrong. But the question is highly nontrivial.
> Consider a photograph -- must I seek permission of all those
> who have proprietary material captured in the image? Is
> a raytracing different than a photograph?
>
> It isn't at all obvious to me there is a problem with using
> commercial logos in tracings. I would say if a photograph
> of the same scene is okay, the tracing should be okay. Would a photograph
> of a coke can be permissible?
>
> Dan
I think the laws of protection are for cicumstances where
profitability are concerned. In the case of the i.r.t.c
where the entrant has the oppertunity to win a prize
with real world value by using trademarked material is
in fact in violation of the intent of the law. To use such
material for ones own use is probably permissable.
I mentioned the case of Disney and the day care center but
there is another even more valid example of using such materials
without permission. That would be the movie industry. In every
scene of a movie where tradmarked goods are shown on screen
there is an extremely large staff of people envolved with
making sure permission is granted by the owner of the materials
in question.
--
Ken Tyler
tyl### [at] pacbellnet
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
>
> Dan Connelly wrote:
> >
> > Clearly Bill is wrong. But the question is highly nontrivial.
> > Consider a photograph -- must I seek permission of all those
> > who have proprietary material captured in the image? Is
> > a raytracing different than a photograph?
> >
> > It isn't at all obvious to me there is a problem with using
> > commercial logos in tracings. I would say if a photograph
> > of the same scene is okay, the tracing should be okay. Would a photograph
> > of a coke can be permissible?
A photo e.g. of a city street where some stores have ads in the window is
generally ok. "Incidental uses" like that are normally not considered
infringing. A photo of just a Coke can, unless, perhaps you are Andy Warhol and
can make a first amendment case as artistic expression, may be potential
trouble. Remember, don't confuse copyright law and trademark law. The rules
are quite different. Incidentally, there have been trademark cases in which
someone was enjoined from using *his own name* because it could damage the value
of a trademarked name or falsely imply endorsement by the trademark holder. I
seem to remember such a case involving an establishment called "Frank Sinatra's
Restaurant", although that was the actual given name of the proprietor.
> I think the laws of protection are for cicumstances where
> profitability are concerned. In the case of the i.r.t.c
> where the entrant has the oppertunity to win a prize
> with real world value by using trademarked material is
> in fact in violation of the intent of the law. To use such
> material for ones own use is probably permissable.
Sorry. Myth number one. Profitablity or profitable intent are irrelevant to
whether infringement occurs. Consider the recent case of the man named "Koch"
who got tired of having it pronounced "kahtch" rather than "koke". He tried to
change it to "Coke-is-it" so people would pronounce it correctly, and a certain
cola company intervened. Although he had no financial intent whatsoever in the
change, they felt (and the law was on their side) that he could thereby damage
their trademark. (Actual or intended) profit could matter in determining the
amount of actual damages in a civil suit. But damages can occur regardless.
And there are still statutory damages if a copyright is registered (which can be
done after the fact).
> I mentioned the case of Disney and the day care center but
> there is another even more valid example of using such materials
> without permission. That would be the movie industry. In every
> scene of a movie where tradmarked goods are shown on screen
> there is an extremely large staff of people envolved with
> making sure permission is granted by the owner of the materials
> in question.
Although in the movie case, they spend even more time negotiating "product
placement" fees *from* the trademark holders!
My bottom line suggestion is: avoid "fan art" - no Enterprises, Batmen, Tie
fighters, Mickey Mice etc. Don't make a specific trademark or trademarked
character the focus of your image. And if you do have a trademarked item in the
image, for safety's sake don't do anything that could be interpreted as
disparaging it. But if you do, say, a restaurant table with a Coke bottle among
the bowls and dishes or even a Garfield calendar on a background wall, don't
sweat it. Many, many past IRTC images, including some excellent ones have
technically infringed trademarks and/or copyrights. So far, I know of no
trouble resulting. But I would hate to see some humorless corporate dweeb get
the IRTC blown out of the water. So please don't push it, people.
Jerry Anning
cle### [at] dholcom
***DISCLAIMER***
Although I have had to spend a fair amount of time researching these matters on
behalf of various people, I am *not* a lawyer. So please don't shun me!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
> I think the laws of protection are for cicumstances where
> profitability are concerned. In the case of the i.r.t.c
> where the entrant has the oppertunity to win a prize
> with real world value by using trademarked material is
> in fact in violation of the intent of the law. To use such
> material for ones own use is probably permissable.
>
> I mentioned the case of Disney and the day care center but
> there is another even more valid example of using such materials
> without permission. That would be the movie industry. In every
> scene of a movie where tradmarked goods are shown on screen
> there is an extremely large staff of people envolved with
> making sure permission is granted by the owner of the materials
> in question.
>
Yes, and to go in hand with that, often the various trademark owners want to get
their products placed, and may have people hired to assist in that (Hey!
Superman really needs to be eating Cherios, let's give you some and you can put
them in your movie...). I'd assume that besides other issues, they would take
care of any legal clearances.
Unfortunately, I don't think we in the ray tracing community have people like
that courting us. Oh well.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
A question here.
Cincerning a song-lyric, where to go to get contact concearning the use of the text ??
I had the whole theme built around this, including the text exisitng in plain view,
all
this for an IRTC entry(imaginary worlds).
Now, my problem is, I can't get a contact with the people owning the copyright.
Since the text is not included with the record(Mine is a bootleg.) and there is no
contact
information for either band or producer. Anyone has an idea of how to act ??
//Spider
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
