"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message 
news:47f82960$1@news.povray.org...
> 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.

I'm not an expert in US law, but:
1.  I think McDonald's rights over their trademark and copyright artwork 
extend beyond just others trading against it. I suspect that, like in most 
other countries, they have the right to protect against missuse/corruption 
of their trademark.
2.  In the case of this question - to publish on the POV-Ray Object 
Collection you need to be able to grant rights over the work to others 
according to the terms of the CC-LGPL.

> You're not implying anything about the light, nor that you got it 
> anywhere.  The whole topic is pretty irrelevant.

I think the phrase "I copied a trademark" is 'implying' something :-)

> 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.

If it showed RM in a compromising position, then I suspect they would be in 
court before the paint dried. Even if it was an accurate and uncompromising 
rendition, I don't think you'd have the right to authorise someone else to 
reuse, modify and redistribute it (e.g. to hang it in their restaurant 
window with a sign saying 10% off McNuggets).

Regards,
Chris.

Post a reply to this message

"Jan Dvorak" <jan### [at] centrumcz> wrote in message 
news:47f88a0c@news.povray.org...
> 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.
> ... snip ...
>
> 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?

Copyright laws vary quite widely by country and cases are often determined 
through precedents set in earlier legal cases in that country.

Again - IANAL, but, if you are using a computer model of a monopoly board to 
represent a monopoly game in an image and it doesn't harm their business, 
then I would think you're on pretty safe ground. I find it hard to imagine 
circumstances where a company such as that would object to their board being 
represented in an IRTC round. Indeed they may well view it as promotional 
for their product. If they did complain, then it should be easy to settle by 
simply removing it from the web site.

Regards,
Chris B.

Post a reply to this message

Chris B wrote:
> I'm not an expert in US law, but:
> 1.  I think McDonald's rights over their trademark and copyright artwork 
> extend beyond just others trading against it.

IANAL. However, my understanding is for copyright, you have the right to 
prevent others from copying it. For trademark, you have the right to 
prevent others from using marks that would confuse consumers into 
believing the marks came from McDonalds.

I'm sure their logo is both trademarked and copyrighted, so yes, 
technically you couldn't paint it yourself and hang it up. But you'd be 
violating copyright, not trademark.

And, of course, they can afford to sue the pants off you if they wish.

> 2.  In the case of this question - to publish on the POV-Ray Object 
> Collection you need to be able to grant rights over the work to others 
> according to the terms of the CC-LGPL.

That's certainly a point, yes.

>> You're not implying anything about the light, nor that you got it 
>> anywhere.  The whole topic is pretty irrelevant.
> 
> I think the phrase "I copied a trademark" is 'implying' something :-)

Hmmm.

>> 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.
> 
> If it showed RM in a compromising position, then I suspect they would be in 
> court before the paint dried. 

Again, I was speaking of trademark, not copyright. Trademark is solely 
an indication of where the goods came from, which is why goods from 
non-confusingly disparate domains can have the same trademark. (E.g., 
it's why you can have both a Vax computer and a Vax vacuum cleaner 
without having trademark problems. Or Apple Computers and Apple Records, 
until Apple Computers started playing music.)

-- 
   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

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

triple_r nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2008/04/05 10:30:
> 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
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
I think that that design is well over 50 years old. My father had one fro some 
years before my conception, and I'm 49. Some differences: Vise grip base, dual 
neons tubes and neom's transformer and balast at the base of the harm.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
A pat on the back is only a few centimeters from a kick in the butt.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 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.

Sigh.  Just to be sure, I should say that the logo in question is a trademark of
Pixar and I hold on copyright to the work.  Of course I should not post the
source either then.

I think this is the reason I didn't post the work a few years back and perhaps I
should not have posted it now.  Have I just opened myself up to litigation?
Should the image be removed?  I hate to overreact since I know it will fade
away into POV-Ray post oblivion within a few days, but it will never disappear.
 The age of copyright law is a frustrating one.

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

Chris B escribió:
> 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).

What about the ball? I recognized it was Luxo Jr just for the ball texture.

Post a reply to this message

Now I probably am overreacting, but the thought didn't really cross my mind that
it may be illegal to simply post an image, falling under the category of 'fan
art.'  Seems it may fall a little closer to copyright violation.  I hate to be
responsible for sullying the POV-Ray newsgroup with possible copyright
violations and it doesn't seem it would be difficult for an administrator to
simply click 'delete' for this post.  Is there a way to request this?  If
indeed it is a violation, I can't think of a reason someone would object.  My
apologies, although I can't imagine anyone else feels too strongly about the
issue.  Thanks.

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

> Now I probably am overreacting, but the thought didn't really cross my mind that
> it may be illegal to simply post an image, falling under the category of 'fan
> art.'  Seems it may fall a little closer to copyright violation.  I hate to be
> responsible for sullying the POV-Ray newsgroup with possible copyright
> violations and it doesn't seem it would be difficult for an administrator to
> simply click 'delete' for this post.  Is there a way to request this?  If
> indeed it is a violation, I can't think of a reason someone would object.  My
> apologies, although I can't imagine anyone else feels too strongly about the
> issue.  Thanks.

I don't think it's bad enough to need deleting. If you really care about 
it, contact Pixar and ask.

http://www.pixar.com/companyinfo/faq/faq.htm

"How do I request a screening of a pixar film, use of Pixar's characters 
or other intellectual property for a book, film, research paper, etc.?"

Post a reply to this message

"Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote in message
news:47f929f8$1@news.povray.org...

>> Now I probably am overreacting, but the thought didn't really cross my
>> mind that
>> it may be illegal to simply post an image, falling under the category of
>> 'fan
>> art.'  Seems it may fall a little closer to copyright violation.
>
> I don't think it's bad enough to need deleting. If you really care about
> it, contact Pixar and ask.
>

I agree with Nicolas. I don't think it needs deleting. I think it unlikely 
that Pixar would have any issue with you posting this image, created in 
homage to their work, here. They may not even object to you sharing your 
source code with appropriate acknowledgements and caveats. In the unlikely 
event that they do raise an issue and ask you to delete it, your newsreader 
software may well allow you to do that yourself. For example, Outlook 
Express has a 'Cancel Message' option on the 'Message' menu.

Regards,
Chris B.

Post a reply to this message