[pluMmet]

It wouldn't hurt to train yourself on the laws: http://www.vasst.com/product.aspx?id=ad ... bc108f0be8

Of course this is USA based video.

[ivox3]

hey Michael, ......nice link(Koons). A good case study.

I pretty much agree with everything you said, ....but in the interest of trying not to reprint the entire law of copyright right here in this thread, .....much was left out. Your counterpoints are just parts I didn't include or elaboarate fully. As you know, .....the law is fairly wide and somewhat open to interpretation and the issue of what's considered public and common is always changing. ----plus, ...it was pretty late.

Referring to the Koon's case, ....my case was meant to be likened more to Roger's copyright than Koon's. I tried to express that--- in copyright, ...you can't just directly reproduce and create something to pass it off as your own.
There would have to be some type of original change in the work that would qualify it as an 'original work', .......all of which, I admittedly did not get too deep into.

okay, .......lest you want to counter. We're moving on .......

[ivox3]

Sheba, .....you didn't really say anything different contrary to what I am saying.


Visual art: I'm just saying talking about the final representation in a 2D format of the design. NOT the methods of creation. I understand what an NDA is, ......and I understand what a tradesecret is. Providing me with your model data to render with, ....doesn't automatically make you the holder of the copyright of the render. There would obviously be a 2 contracts involved. A copyright/usage one, and an NDA about the method of model creation, ....if it was necessary to do the render and I had to become privy to such information.

I think we have a definition error. The word derivative in copyright is something that is lawfully definied and protected. From your original post, ....I got the feeling that you thought it to be something negative and illegal.
That's where all that came from. An example of derivative work might be a collage of known famous photos all chopped up into a new composition. Do we agree on that?

I understand you can't just snatch something like a likeness of Mickey Mouse and create something with it, ........the examples were mentioned as known 'derivative' works. That is all, but there are still ways to use something that could qualify as a protectable work. We won't get into that, at least I won't.

So, I'm curious, .....have you ever had your sculpture professionally photographed? who owns the negatives(a figure of speech nowadays), ...the copyright? My whole argument is that, ...unless you had a signed contract with that photographer, ......then they would. The other part of my arguments is that, ....rendering an image of a sculpture would fall under the same conditions.

If someone shows me a section in the copyright code that demonstrates otherwise, I'll be happy to say ---- sorry, ....I was wrong.

__________________________________________________

Edit: I did some digging ......and I might of proved myself wrong in this particular aspect! The part in question is (2) below. But this may need further explanation. The problem for me is that, .....this runs completely contrary to what I've witnessed industry wide as to what is commonly believed about copyright.

It would appear that there is a 'joint' form of copyright in the instance of creating a work through an author. Still unclear about this ......

From section 102:

WHO CAN CLAIM COPYRIGHT

Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright.

In the case of works made for hire, the employer and not the employee is considered to be the author. Section 101 of the copyright law defines a "work made for hire" as:

* (1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or
* (2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as:
o a contribution to a collective work
o a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work
o a translation
o a supplementary work
o a compilation
o an instructional text
o a test
o answer material for a test
o an atlas





of interest: http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

[JDHill]

[RonB]

I agree with what Aksel said above, it is the same here in the U.S.

Getting back to the basic issue, it does not matter if the object of illustration was created by another individual, as a design say of an appliance or a building, we are talking about the image here, not the design. When a photographer takes a picture of an object or whatever, they automatically own that picture...when an image is rendered it is the samething; the 3D artist owns that image. It does not matter if he designed the object or not...it is the artist's image we are talking about. Perhaps we should all start referring to our work as, "3D Illustration"...That's what I advertise as, "Ron Bednar 3D Illustration".
And perhaps we ought to organise an international "3D Artists Guild". That's something to consider...

Cheers, Ron