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.

Post a reply to this message

I come to think of the Coca-Cola bottles..
I don't think they are allowed to be used in any way...
But as i see it, it depends on the product. In the Coca-Cola case, it says in the
llegal
point that it may not be used in any other situation(or something like that)

//Spider

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.

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.

Maybe this will help -


		10 Big Myths about copyright explained
			By Brad Templeton


	1)  If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not
	copyrighted.

	This was true in the past, but today almost all major
	nations follow the Berne copyright convention.  For example,
	after April 1, 1989, almost everything created privately in the
	USA is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not.
	The default you should assume for other people's works is that
	they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you *know*
	otherwise.  There are some old works that lost protection
	without notice, but frankly you should not risk it unless
	you know for sure.

	It is true that a notice strengthens the protection, by
	warning people, and by allowing one to get more and
	different damages, but it is not necessary.  If it looks
	copyrighted, you should assume it is.   This applies to pictures,
	too.  You can't scan pictures from magazines and post them
	to the net, and if you come upon something unknown,
	you shouldn't post that either.

	The correct form for a notice is:
		"Copyright <dates> by <author/owner>"
	You can use C in a circle instead of "Copyright" but "(C)"
	has never been given legal force.  The phrase "All Rights
	Reserved" used to be required in some nations but is now
	not needed.


	2) If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation.

	False.  Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in
	court, but that's essentially the only difference.  It's still a
	violation if you give it away -- and there can still be
	heavy damages if you hurt the commercial value of the
	property.

	3) If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public domain.

	False.  Nothing is in the public domain anymore unless the
	owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*).  Explicitly,
	as in you have a note from the author/owner saying, "I grant
	this to the public domain."  Those exact words or words very
	much like them.

	Some argue that posting to Usenet implicitly grants
	permission to everybody to copy the posting within fairly
	wide bounds, and others feel that Usenet is an automatic store and
	forward network where all the thousands of copies made are
	done at the command (rather than the consent) of the
	poster.  This is a matter of some debate, but even if the
	former is true (and in this writer's opinion we should all pray
	it isn't true) it simply would suggest posters are implicitly
	granting permissions "for the sort of copying one might expect
	when one posts to Usenet" and in no case is this a placement
	of material into the public domain.  Furthermore it is very
	difficult for an implicit licence to supersede an explicitly
	stated licence that the copier was aware of.

	Note that all this assumes the poster had the right to post
	the item in the first place.  If the poster didn't, then all
	the copies are pirate, and no implied licence or theoretical
	reduction of the copyright can take place.

	(*) It's also usually in the public domain if the creator has
	been dead for 50 years.  If anybody dead for 50 years is posting
	to the net, let me know.  There are some other fine points
	to this issue -- check more detailed documents for info.

	4) My posting was just fair use!

	See other notes on fair use for a detailed answer, but bear
	the following in mind:

	The "fair use" exemption to copyright law was created to allow
	things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and
	education about copyrighted works without the permission of the
	author.  Intent, and damage to the commercial value of the
	work are important considerations.  Are you reproducing an
	article from the New York Times because you needed to in order
	to criticise the quality of the New York Times, or because you
	couldn't find time to write your own story, or didn't want your
	readers to have to pay to log onto the online services with the
	story or buy a copy of the paper?  The former is probably fair
	use, the latter probably isn't.

	Fair use is almost always a short excerpt and almost always
	attributed.  (One should not use more of the work than is
	necessary to make the commentary.) It should not harm the
	commercial value of the work (which is another reason why
	reproduction of the entire work is generally forbidden.)

	Note that most inclusion of text in Usenet followups is for
	commentary and reply, and it doesn't damage the commercial
	value of the original posting (if it has any) and as such it
	is fair use.  Fair use isn't an exact doctrine, either.  The
	court decides if the right to comment overrides the copyright
	on an indidvidual basis in each case.  There have been cases
	that go beyond the bounds of what I say above, but in general
	they don't apply to the typical net misclaim of fair use.
	It's a risky defence to attempt.

	5) If you don't defend your copyright you lose it.

	False.  Copyright is effectively never lost these days, unless
	explicitly given away.  You may be thinking of trade marks, which
	can be weakened or lost if not defended.

	6) Somebody has that name copyrighted!

	You can't "copyright a name," or anything short like that.
	Titles usually don't qualify, but I doubt you could write a
	song entitled "Everybody's got something to hide except for
	me and my monkey."

	You can't copyright words, but you can trademark them,
	generally by using them to refer to your brand of a
	generic type of product or service.  Like an "Apple"
	computer.  Apple Computer "owns" that word applied to
	computers, even though it is also an ordinary word.  Apple
	Records owns it when applied to music.  Neither owns the
	word on its own, only in context, and owning a mark doesn't
	mean complete control -- see a more detailed treatise on
	this law for details.

	You can't use somebody else's trademark in a way that would
	unfairly hurt the value of the mark, or in a way that might
	make people confuse you with the real owner of the mark, or
	which might allow you to profit from the mark's good name.
	For example, if I were giving advice on music videos, I
	would be very wary of trying to label my works with a name
	like "mtv."  :-)

	7) They can't get me, defendants in court have powerful rights!

	Copyright law is mostly civil law.  If you violate copyright
	you would usually get sued, not charged with a crime.
	"Innocent until proven guilty" is a principle of criminal
	law, as is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."  Sorry, but in
	copyright suits, these don't apply the same way or at all.
	It's mostly which side and set of evidence the judge or
	jury accepts or believes more, though the rules vary based
	on the type of infringement.  In civil cases you can even
	be made to self-incriminate.

	8) Oh, so copyright violation isn't a crime or anything?

	Actually, recently in the USA commercial copyright
	violation involving more than 10 copies and value over
	$2500 was made a felony.  So watch out.  (At least you get
	the protections of criminal law.)  On the other hand, don't
	think you're going to get people thrown in jail for posting
	your E-mail.  The courts have much better things to do than
	that.  This is a fairly new, untested statute.

	9) It doesn't hurt anybody -- in fact it's free advertising.

	It's up to the owner to decide if they want the free ads or
	not.  If they want them, they will be sure to contact you.
	Don't rationalize whether it hurts the owner or not, *ask*
	them.  Usually that's not too hard to do.  Time past,
	ClariNet published the very funny Dave Barry column to a
	large and appreciative Usenet audience for a fee, but some
	person didn't ask, and forwarded it to a mailing list, got
	caught, and the newspaper chain that employs Dave Barry
	pulled the column from the net, pissing off everybody who
	enjoyed it.  Even if you can't think of how the author or
	owner gets hurt, think about the fact that piracy on the net
	hurts everybody who wants a chance to use this wonderful new
	technology to do more than read other people's flamewars.

	10) They e-mailed me a copy, so I can post it.

	To have a copy is not to have the copyright.  All the E-mail
	you write is copyrighted.  However, E-mail is not, unless
	previously agreed, secret.  So you can certainly *report* on
	what E-mail you are sent, and reveal what it says.  You can
	even quote parts of it to demonstrate.  Frankly, somebody
	who sues over an ordinary message might well get no damages,
	because the message has no commercial value, but if you want
	to stay strictly in the law, you should ask first.  On the
	other hand, don't go nuts if somebody posts your E-mail. If
	it was an ordinary non-secret personal letter of minimal
	commercial value with no copyright notice (like 99.9% of all
	E-mail), you probably won't get any damages if you sue them.


	-----------------    In Summary   ---------------------------
	
	These days, almost all things are copyrighted the moment they
	are written, and no copyright notice is required.

	Copyright is still violated whether you charged money or not,
	only damages are affected by that.

	Postings to the net are not granted to the public domain, and
	don't grant you any permission to do further copying except
	*perhaps* the sort of copying the poster might have expected
	in the ordinary flow of the net.

	Fair use is a complex doctrine meant to allow certain valuable
	social purposes.  Ask yourself why you are republishing what
	you are posting and why you couldn't have just rewritten it
	in your own words.

	Copyright is not lost because you don't defend it; that's
	a concept from trademark law.  The ownership of names is
	also from trademark law, so don't say somebody has a name
	copyrighted.

	Copyright law is mostly civil law where the special rights
	of criminal defendants you hear so much about don't apply.
	Watch out, however, as new laws are moving copyright
	violation into the criminal realm.

	Don't rationalize that you are helping the copyright holder;
	often it's not that hard to ask permission.

	Posting E-mail is technically a violation, but revealing
	facts from E-mail isn't, and for almost all typical E-mail,
	nobody could wring any damages from you for posting it.

	-----------------------------------------------------------

		Permission is granted to freely copy this
		document in electronic form, or to print for
		personal use.  If you had not seen a notice
		like this on the document, you would have to
		assume you did not have permission to copy it.
		This document is still protected by you-know-
		what even though it has no copyright notice.




-- 
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 13:10:21 -0800, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
>Maybe this will help -
>
>
>		10 Big Myths about copyright explained
>[...]

I guess I knew all this.  The question is, does this use
constitute "fair use?"  Personally, I doubt it, but I'm 
looking for other opinions.  I'd hate to have to put a can 
of "POV Soup" in my image if I could have a can of 
Campbell's.  No disrespect to POV intended, of course. :)

Post a reply to this message

Ron Parker wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 13:10:21 -0800, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
> >Maybe this will help -
> >
> >
> >               10 Big Myths about copyright explained
> >[...]
> 
> I guess I knew all this.  The question is, does this use
> constitute "fair use?"  Personally, I doubt it, but I'm
> looking for other opinions.  I'd hate to have to put a can
> of "POV Soup" in my image if I could have a can of
> Campbell's.  No disrespect to POV intended, of course. :)

This issue came up early in the IMP and it was decided for legal
reasons that all artwork would be original. We had wanted a coke
can rotating through space drifting past the camera as "space junk".
This of course would be illegal and without express permission
from the manufacturer would have put everybody in potential legal
harms way. It was therefor decided all artwork would be original
and without reference to any known trademark material.

If we take the case of the Disney co. then you would know you had
better run and hide if they find you using any of their coprighted
or trade mark creatures. They persue and procecute every case
regardless of their seeming innocence. I read in the newspaper
once of a daycare center that had a few Disney characters painted
onone wall of the kids playground. Disney made them remove the
"offending" images.

You have a valid question - should the i.r.t.c. even allow the
submission of such materials ? I would think they would want to
be very cautious on this issue since the entries go into a
nationaly distributed CD.

The bottom line say's it is illegal to use copyrighted material
without the express permission of the creators/owners permission
and any violation of this puts you in legal harms way. The fact
that this kind of legal infringment occurs on a daily basis, has
increased dramaticaly since the proliferation of the internet,
and the fact they can't catch everybody, probably leaves you in
a pretty safe place.

I say "Let your conscience your guide".

-- 
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

You left out one thing.  If you are making fun of something (satire),
it's all fair game.  At least that's the law in the US.  We got this
thing about free speech and tearing people down when they get big...

-Mike

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 13:57:58 -0800, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> 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

On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 12:45:55 +0100, Spider <spi### [at] bahnhofse> wrote:
>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 ??

You could try finding someone who has the appropriate literature, or you
could try contacting ASCAP and/or BMI, who should be able to direct you 
to the right place.  Last time I looked, neither was well-represented on
the Web, so this might necessitate a few international calls to the USA.

I did this once in a previous life and never did find the right place, 
but that might have been merely a case of insufficient persistence on 
my part coupled with a song for which nobody seems to know who is the 
copyright owner (Old McDonald's Farm).

With the whole brouhaha over lyrics.ch, you'll want to tread very, very 
carefully around anything having to do with lyrics...

Post a reply to this message

:::
> You could try finding someone who has the appropriate literature, or you
> could try contacting ASCAP and/or BMI, who should be able to direct you
> to the right place.  Last time I looked, neither was well-represented on
> the Web, so this might necessitate a few international calls to the USA.
Thankyou, I'll give it a shot... but then, long distance is notr easy for me }:-\
 
> I did this once in a previous life and never did find the right place,
> but that might have been merely a case of insufficient persistence on
> my part coupled with a song for which nobody seems to know who is the
> copyright owner (Old McDonald's Farm).
Oki, i'm more after Sisters Of Mercy's song "Under the gun" As I said, I don't have
any
reference on the CD...
 
> With the whole brouhaha over lyrics.ch, you'll want to tread very, very
> carefully around anything having to do with lyrics...
Yes, I thought of this to... That's the reason I ask now...

//Spider

Post a reply to this message

Spider wrote:
> 
> 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 ??

If you want to play it safe, drop this idea entirely.  The author Spider (!)
Robinson once wanted to quote a few lines from a song in one of his novels and
the relevant legal types wanted reimbursement measured in *thousands* of US
dollars!  Fortunately for Robinson, the musician himself was angry with his
agent/publishers/whatever (I forget the details) and granted Robinson permission
essentially to spite them.  I wouldn't count on that kind of luck.

Jerry Anning
cle### [at] dholcom

Post a reply to this message

On 27 Jan 1999 14:21:01 -0500, Ron Parker <par### [at] my-dejanewscom> wrote:
>2) Assuming it is legal to do this in the art world, 
>   is it legal in IRTC?

Heh.  I should have reread the IRTC stills rules before I asked:

3-d. You may use objects and textures downloaded from the internet or 
     purchased commercially, but it is not encouraged. Similarly you 
     may use other people's images as image-maps or textures within 
     your own work. In all cases, you must get permission from the 
     creator of the object or image. If you use such objects or images, 
     you must make this known with proper acknowledgments in the text 
     file accompanying your submission. You may not violate copyrights 
     of any sort. 

Since it is an IRTC requirement that I get permission whether or not
copyright law would allow the usage, I guess I'll stick with the can
of POV Soup.

Post a reply to this message

Thankyou for the information..
Unfortunately for me, *sigh* Ive spent so much work on this beloved picture, that I
have
no idea on what to do *laugh*
Well, the Idea may remain, but I'll have to crap some of the connection to my
artistics
*SHIT* (Sorry about the language...)

Well, ok.... take it calm Spider ;-)

Ah, well... Can make a note on it in my .txt at least..

//Spider

Post a reply to this message

On MTV's  Real World, when they show kids wearing the latest styles, they do a
post-production a pixel blur over the logos of sports teams and brand names on
clothing.  Do they do it to avoid copyright infringement or to punish the companies
who won't pay advertising space--who knows?  But this use of trademarked logos is
about as incidental as you can get.

Jerry Anning wrote:

> 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.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'us-ascii' (1 KB)

Jerry Anning wrote:
> 
> 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.

I was planning to do a scene from a novel for "Imaginary Worlds".  If all
of the artwork is original, but the concept for the scene comes from
copyrighted material, what kind of laws apply?

This would NOT be a copy of an existing illustration (well, not one that I
have ever seen).

-Nathan

Post a reply to this message

Nathan Kopp wrote:
> 
> Jerry Anning wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> 
> I was planning to do a scene from a novel for "Imaginary Worlds".  If all
> of the artwork is original, but the concept for the scene comes from
> copyrighted material, what kind of laws apply?
> 
> This would NOT be a copy of an existing illustration (well, not one that I
> have ever seen).
> 
> -Nathan

I see no conflict of interest in this. If as you say your material
is original there is no one who can contest it's ownership despite
what the inspiration is.

Here is a thought -

 When I read a novel I try to mentaly picture what the author sets
up for the atmosphere for whatever part of the story I'm reading.
What I picture, in my mind, as the setting is different from what
the author pictured when he/she wrote it and it will also be
different for you. Therefore I argue that there really is nothing
that you can steal from the book because it would be stealing from
yourself.

-- 
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote:
> 
> Nathan Kopp wrote:
> >
> > Jerry Anning wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > I was planning to do a scene from a novel for "Imaginary Worlds".  If all
> > of the artwork is original, but the concept for the scene comes from
> > copyrighted material, what kind of laws apply?
> >
> > This would NOT be a copy of an existing illustration (well, not one that I
> > have ever seen).
> >
> > -Nathan
> 
> I see no conflict of interest in this. If as you say your material
> is original there is no one who can contest it's ownership despite
> what the inspiration is.


Sorry Ken, Nathan.  That *is* considered a copyright infringement.  If you
create an image of, say, Callandor in the Stone of Tear (nudge, nudge), even
though you create the image yourself as you imagine it, you are infringing the
author's copyright.  Incidentally, most of what I have been saying is not just
US based, but a matter of nearly universal international law (the Treaty of
Berne).

Jerry Anning
cle### [at] dholcom

Post a reply to this message

Jerry Anning wrote:
> 
> Sorry Ken, Nathan.  That *is* considered a copyright infringement.  If you
> create an image of, say, Callandor in the Stone of Tear (nudge, nudge), even
> though you create the image yourself as you imagine it, you are infringing the
> author's copyright.  Incidentally, most of what I have been saying is not just
> US based, but a matter of nearly universal international law (the Treaty of
> Berne).
> 
> Jerry Anning
> cle### [at] dholcom

If Nathan wouldn't give this image a name connected with the book and if
he wouldn't mention it in the txt-file would there be room for a law
suit?
Is the similarity with an existing book enough to justify a law suit? 
This would prohibit a lot of pictures. Showing a strong barbarian hero
in my rendering, would this allow the owner of the Conan copyrights to
sue me?
If I remember my patent and copyright course there is some room left for
creativity. 
It's a term hard to grab but I think it is connected with the
originality of the idea.

Well, this is a minefield.

Marc
--
Marc Schimmler

Post a reply to this message

> Is the similarity with an existing book enough to justify a law suit?
> This would prohibit a lot of pictures. Showing a strong barbarian hero
> in my rendering, would this allow the owner of the Conan copyrights to
> sue me?
Conan, that would be a strong thing, Koontz wrote those books once, and
the script If I remember correctly..

//Spider

Post a reply to this message

Marc Schimmler wrote:
> 
> Jerry Anning wrote:
> >
> > Sorry Ken, Nathan.  That *is* considered a copyright infringement.  If you
> > create an image of, say, Callandor in the Stone of Tear (nudge, nudge), even
> > though you create the image yourself as you imagine it, you are infringing the
> > author's copyright.  Incidentally, most of what I have been saying is not just
> > US based, but a matter of nearly universal international law (the Treaty of
> > Berne).

> 
> If Nathan wouldn't give this image a name connected with the book and if
> he wouldn't mention it in the txt-file would there be room for a law
> suit?
> Is the similarity with an existing book enough to justify a law suit?
> This would prohibit a lot of pictures. Showing a strong barbarian hero
> in my rendering, would this allow the owner of the Conan copyrights to
> sue me?
> If I remember my patent and copyright course there is some room left for
> creativity.
> It's a term hard to grab but I think it is connected with the
> originality of the idea.

Don't call your barbarian Conan and don't make him look too much like Conan book
cover art, Arnold in the movies, Conan calendars etc. and don't tell a story
that is an obvious pastiche of an actual Conan story (i.e. "Spire of the
Mammoth" (looking like the Conan story "Tower of the Elephant"), and it is OK. 
As you say, this can be a gray area.  Note that the Disney people made Marvel
make physical changes in "Howard the Duck" so that he wouldn't look too much
like "Donald Duck" even though the stories were completely different and aimed
mainly at different audiences.  For irtc purposes it is my ***OPINION*** that if
you don't use actual character names, look too much like existing art or quote
or too closely copy an existing and identifiable story, you will be ok.  Of
course, most scenes, from a visual standpoint, are generic enough to be no
problem.  A woman on a balcony isn't necessarily Juliet and the man below
doesn't have to be Romeo (incidentally, they themselves were "borrowed" from
older material!).

Jerry Anning
cle### [at] dholcom

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 02 Feb 1999 19:39:08 -0500, Jerry Anning <cle### [at] dholcom>
wrote:

> A woman on a balcony isn't necessarily Juliet and the man below
>doesn't have to be Romeo (incidentally, they themselves were "borrowed" from
>older material!).

And, IIRC, the balcony doesn't appear in the actual stage directions.

Post a reply to this message

Marc Schimmler wrote:
> 
> If Nathan wouldn't give this image a name connected with the book and if
> he wouldn't mention it in the txt-file would there be room for a law
> suit?

But, of course, that would remove a lot of meaning from the scene.  I'm
glad I didn't start the image yet (too much programming of photon maps).
Instead, I'll probably just make up my own imaginary world.  ;-)

-Nathan

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote in message <36AF8BE6.525718FA@pacbell.net>...
/.../
>If we take the case of the Disney co. then you would know you had
>better run and hide if they find you using any of their coprighted
>or trade mark creatures. They persue and procecute every case
>regardless of their seeming innocence. I read in the newspaper
>once of a daycare center that had a few Disney characters painted
>onone wall of the kids playground. Disney made them remove the
>"offending" images.


I remember a high-ranking work in the Magic round using Mickey Mouse ® as
the central character of his image. Is he in the Big House by now?

Margus

Post a reply to this message

Margus Ramst wrote:
> 
> Ken wrote in message <36AF8BE6.525718FA@pacbell.net>...
> /.../
> >If we take the case of the Disney co. then you would know you had
> >better run and hide if they find you using any of their coprighted
> >or trade mark creatures. They persue and procecute every case
> >regardless of their seeming innocence. I read in the newspaper
> >once of a daycare center that had a few Disney characters painted
> >onone wall of the kids playground. Disney made them remove the
> >"offending" images.
> 
> I remember a high-ranking work in the Magic round using Mickey Mouse ® as
> the central character of his image. Is he in the Big House by now?
> 
> Margus

If any of Micky's goon sqaud have seen it you can bet there are
a team of detectives and lawyers working on it. Those guy's don't
mess around.

-- 
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

Ron Parker wrote :
> I guess I knew all this.  The question is, does this use
> constitute "fair use?"  Personally, I doubt it, but I'm
> looking for other opinions.  I'd hate to have to put a can
> of "POV Soup" in my image if I could have a can of
> Campbell's.  No disrespect to POV intended, of course. :)

Why not ?  A can of Pov-Soup could be much more interesting
that an ordinary Campbell's...  I did that in my winning "elements"
image (pxl506.jpg) with a tea label : "Pov-Tea(m) - pigment {Yellow}"
instead of "Lipton Yellow".  I could have used the original Lipton
thing, but paying little tributes to Pov seems to get the sympathy
of voters ;)

Cheers,
Fabien.

Post a reply to this message

Jerry Anning <cle### [at] dholcom> wrote in article
<36B1FC32.3D2788A0@dhol.com>...
> Spider wrote:
> > 
> > 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 ??
> 
> If you want to play it safe, drop this idea entirely.  The author Spider
(!)
> Robinson once wanted to quote a few lines from a song in one of his
novels and
> the relevant legal types wanted reimbursement measured in *thousands* of
US
> dollars!  Fortunately for Robinson, the musician himself was angry with
his
> agent/publishers/whatever (I forget the details) and granted Robinson
permission
> essentially to spite them.  I wouldn't count on that kind of luck.
> 

	'specially if the copyright is owned by the record company and not the
artist - I seem to recall, a case of an artist (Bjork, IIRC) using a sample
on track, that track was released on an album then the record company that
owned the copyright on the sampled material had a fit and got the album
withdrawn, the original artist (Scanner in this case, I think) that created
the piece that was sampled said it was OK, but the record company said "no,
we own the copyright", I think there was probably a little more to it than
this - there may have been some doubt over who owned the copyright or
something, but in the end the offending track was remixed sans sample and
the original artist (of the sampled material) had a big falling out with
their record company.

-- 
Scott Hill : Sco### [at] DDLinkscouk
Software Engineer (and all round nice guy)
Author of Pandora's Box : Watch this space.
Work homepage : http://www.ddlinks.demon.co.uk

"We will decide what the news is. The news is what we tell you it is." -
The Fox TV network.

Post a reply to this message

Ron Parker wrote:
<A bunch of stuff>

This goes right back to Andy Warhol and his soup can paintings. In
short: The company sued, Andy won.

I Believe that there is a blurb in the fair use bits of copyright laws
that says something to the effect that you can use copyrighted material
for purposes of parody, review or just plain art... Unless you are
saying bad things about it, in which case it's slander and that's
another set of laws.

And then there is trade mark law...

-- 
Chris Maryan
mailto:cma### [at] geocitiescom
***
Will work for cash.
***
Email me if you are interested in donating
to the Chris Maryan needs money fund.
We will also accept donations to the Chris
needs a Pentium II or SGI workstation 
fund and the Chris needs a car fund.

Post a reply to this message

An interesting thread.

A couple of things occur to me. Someone, earlier in the thread, mentioned a
coke can in space. This specific example strikes me as fair and legit.
parody/satire/whatever. A can of POV-cola just wouldn't have the same impact
or say the same things about polution and waste, etc.

An implication of this is that it's alright to use a copyrighted product as
long as you are 'dissing it. Curios. A thirsty man gratefully drinking a can
of Coke while admiring, bikini-clad woman watch adoringly would be a
copyright infringment, but a man using a can of Coke to replenish a
car-battery would be okay. Weird.

Post a reply to this message