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

triple_r wrote:
> 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?

Nah. For anyone to litigate, there would have to be something they could 
get that way that you wouldn't give them cheaper. Nobody really cares. I 
was just discussing theoretically.

Now, if you'd depicted Luxo doing rude things to Luxo Jr or something, I 
can see someone at Pixar actually asking you to stop doing that. 
(Apparently, Larry Niven has sent letters to folks depicting Known Space 
Porn.)  Other than that, what benefit would they get doing more than 
sending you a letter saying to stop distributing it?

-- 
   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 <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> (Apparently, Larry Niven has sent letters to folks depicting Known Space
> Porn.)

Hoho, I bet there's a wide spectrum of tastes there. What self-respecting
flatlander would pay to see jinxians doing it? :-)

Post a reply to this message

"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> schreef in bericht 
news:web.47f9f64ed70e611b731f01d10@news.povray.org...
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> (Apparently, Larry Niven has sent letters to folks depicting Known Space
>> Porn.)
>
> Hoho, I bet there's a wide spectrum of tastes there. What self-respecting
> flatlander would pay to see jinxians doing it? :-)
>

Well, there is that matter about Puppeteer sex...

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Hoho, I bet there's a wide spectrum of tastes there. What self-respecting
> flatlander would pay to see jinxians doing it? :-)

If I recall correctly, the complaint was more along the line of "human 
females don't smell right to Kzinti."

-- 
   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 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

I've got a lamp pretty much just like that. If you like, I can take some 
pictures of it and you can change the model enough to no longer resemble 
some company's mascot.

It might be too close to someone's logo to post that lamp with the ball. 
But change the shape of the lamp's base and the lamp it self wouldn't be 
a big deal. A quick search of the big box stores webpages found several 
lamps just like that one. Googleing for 'architect lamps' found dozens 
of them.

My opinion, as a non-expert in anything legal, make a demo picture that 
doesn't resemble Luxo and if the code is all yours then there isn't a 
problem at all.

Post a reply to this message