 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi all,
some weeks ago I learned that depicting certain public buildings is not allowed
due to copyright issues. One cannot depict the Eiffel-tower with his laserlights
since they are copyrighted to the artist who created the lights. Even the
depicting of the Sidney opera, or of the Statue of Liberty, New York, should be
forbidden. I can not really believe this, since we have the "Freedom of
panorama". But I'm no lawyer. What do you know or think of this?
Best regards,
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Hi all,
>
> some weeks ago I learned that depicting certain public buildings is
> not allowed due to copyright issues. One cannot depict the
> Eiffel-tower with his laserlights since they are copyrighted to the
> artist who created the lights. Even the depicting of the Sidney
> opera, or of the Statue of Liberty, New York, should be forbidden. I
> can not really believe this, since we have the "Freedom of panorama".
> But I'm no lawyer. What do you know or think of this?
>
IANAL too, but my first guess is that these issues refer only to
photographs, and only if you tried to use them commercially. A little
research seems to confirm that:
http://asmp.org/tutorials/photos-public-buildings.html#.UNTYYPl385Y
http://thecopyrightzone.com/?p=458
But as usual with IP, you never can be sure until someone sues you...
and perhaps not even so.
--
Jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
MichaelJF <mi-### [at] t-online de> wrote:
> the Statue of Liberty, New York
Author died over a hundred years ago. I don't think any law anywhere in
the world supports the idea of re-copyrighting a work of art in the
public domain.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Hi all,
>
> some weeks ago I learned that depicting certain public buildings is not allowed
> due to copyright issues. One cannot depict the Eiffel-tower with his laserlights
> since they are copyrighted to the artist who created the lights. Even the
> depicting of the Sidney opera, or of the Statue of Liberty, New York, should be
> forbidden. I can not really believe this, since we have the "Freedom of
> panorama". But I'm no lawyer. What do you know or think of this?
>
> Best regards,
> Michael
>
>
Any copyright for the Eifel tower or the Statue of liberty is long expired.
There may be a copyright on a recent laser creation, but it will only
comes into play for night-time photos, and then, only for comercial
ones. Normaly, an artistic representation of a work of art is deemed
fair use. Same for educational or demonstration purpose.
For the Sidney opera, it's a public building and a local icon. You
should be safe. There are literaly tousands of photos all around the
world showing it from every angles...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
As you can imagine I haven't asked for your opinion without cause. The
information came from the web-site of a german radio broadcast station. The
seriousness of this special station is out of question completely (Hessischer
Rundfunk 3). Yes it was about photographies but about the use with facebook,
twitter and the like. Some law attornies seems to fine people who gave
photographies of the three named objects (and some more I have forgotten) at
facebook or twitter or the like (I must admit I have no idea of this services so
far und didn't use them). So it seems to be not only with commercial uses.
Unfortunatelly the official German radio stations have to delete their
web-informations after a (short) while and so I have only found an evidence that
it has existed at the 18th October this year with google today. That's the
reason why I'm am a little bit cautious to model industry objects - or use free
models of them. For example I would have liked to have Asimo in a scene hosting
a tea ceremony but rejected the idea since I was not sure if Honda has a say in
this.
Best regards,
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"MichaelJF" <mi-### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
> As you can imagine I haven't asked for your opinion without cause. The
> information came from the web-site of a german radio broadcast station. The
> seriousness of this special station is out of question completely (Hessischer
> Rundfunk 3). Yes it was about photographies but about the use with facebook,
> twitter and the like. Some law attornies seems to fine people who gave
> photographies of the three named objects (and some more I have forgotten) at
> facebook or twitter or the like (I must admit I have no idea of this services so
> far und didn't use them). So it seems to be not only with commercial uses.
> Unfortunatelly the official German radio stations have to delete their
> web-informations after a (short) while and so I have only found an evidence that
> it has existed at the 18th October this year with google today. That's the
> reason why I'm am a little bit cautious to model industry objects - or use free
> models of them. For example I would have liked to have Asimo in a scene hosting
> a tea ceremony but rejected the idea since I was not sure if Honda has a say in
> this.
>
> Best regards,
> Michael
At the moment I'm modelling the isle of Teneriffa, Spain, with my contour-line
to height_field idea I posted some weeks ago and I really hope God claims no
copyright....
Best regards,
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> At the moment I'm modelling the isle of Teneriffa, Spain, with my contour-line
> to height_field idea I posted some weeks ago and I really hope God claims no
> copyright....
Only against other gods trying to copy His Creation... :)
--
Jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/22/2012 1:11 AM, Warp wrote:
> MichaelJF <mi-### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
>> the Statue of Liberty, New York
>
> Author died over a hundred years ago. I don't think any law anywhere in
> the world supports the idea of re-copyrighting a work of art in the
> public domain.
>
Uh, actually, I think that one of the court rulings recently
specifically said that this *was* possible:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/scotus-re-copyright-decision/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> On 12/22/2012 1:11 AM, Warp wrote:
>> MichaelJF <mi-### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
>>> the Statue of Liberty, New York
>>
>> Author died over a hundred years ago. I don't think any law anywhere in
>> the world supports the idea of re-copyrighting a work of art in the
>> public domain.
>>
> Uh, actually, I think that one of the court rulings recently
> specifically said that this *was* possible:
>
> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/scotus-re-copyright-decision/
It's may be done, in the USA, when a work is STILL copyrighted in some
other countrys, but was made public domain in the USA under USA laws.
In this case, it mean complying with the Berne Convention
for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.
Any work that is deemed public domain in the country of origin and the
USA will stay in the public domain.
Copyright is not applicable when a work appears in literaly millions of
paintings, photos, drawings, derivative works, books, TV shows, films,
on-line repositories,...
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22-12-2012 22:34, MichaelJF wrote:
> At the moment I'm modelling the isle of Teneriffa, Spain, with my contour-line
> to height_field idea I posted some weeks ago and I really hope God claims no
> copyright....
As long as you model *all* the stones but one, you should be safe. ;-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
