 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris B wrote:
> I imagine that the question arises because you've copied a real lamp quite
> precisely.
http://www.pixar.com/shorts/ljr/
--
William Tracy
afi### [at] gmail com -- wtr### [at] calpolyedu
If things really do go wrong, your driver may find itself having to
reset or perform other acts of violence against one of its devices.
-- Linux Device Drivers, Third Edition
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
William Tracy <wtr### [at] calpolyedu> wrote:
> Chris B wrote:
> > I imagine that the question arises because you've copied a real lamp quite
> > precisely.
>
> http://www.pixar.com/shorts/ljr/
Indeed. Pixar copied a lamp quite precisely. I copied a trademark. Hmm. All
I could get out of Wikipedia is that fair use means I can depict a trademark to
refer to the owner, but I haven't a clue as to what that means in this context.
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
You're not implying anything about the light, nor that you got it
anywhere. The whole topic is pretty irrelevant.
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.
--
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 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.
>
>> 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.
> You're not implying anything about the light, nor that you got it
> anywhere. The whole topic is pretty irrelevant.
>
> 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.
>
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?
--
the ultimate time-killer:
+a0.0 +am2 +r9
Johnny D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"triple_r" <rre### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:web.47f8098fd70e611bae42298f0@news.povray.org...
> William Tracy <wtr### [at] calpolyedu> wrote:
>> Chris B wrote:
>> > I imagine that the question arises because you've copied a real lamp
>> > quite
>> > precisely.
>>
>> http://www.pixar.com/shorts/ljr/
>
> Indeed. Pixar copied a lamp quite precisely. I copied a trademark. Hmm.
>
Ahh! I should've noticed that :-)
IMO that's more tricky because your model is a copy of another computer
model.
For you to post it into the POV-Ray object collection you need to have the
right to grant a CC-LGPL license over the model to authorise others to use,
copy, adapt and redistribute. My guess would be that you don't have that
exclusive right.
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).
Regards,
Chris B.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
