[bathsheba]

By contracting a third party to produce a rendering of a building, they have given them permission to reproduce that building as a "new version of that work." However, this permission does implicitly transfer the rights of the original "works" to the contracted party.

That should say, "does not", right?

-Sheba

[bathsheba]

That copyright (if the new works fits all criteria for a 'derived' work, would rest with the new creator of that work.

Well, wait a minute -- if I hire someone to render one of my sculptures using a model that I provide confidentially under NDA, you're saying that they then have full rights in the rendering and can sell it freely without my permission or acknowledgment?

I just don't think that's true. If it were true in the way you seem to be saying, nobody would ever hire out illustration at all.

-Sheba

[Frances]

That copyright (if the new works fits all criteria for a 'derived' work, would rest with the new creator of that work.

Well, wait a minute -- if I hire someone to render one of my sculptures using a model that I provide confidentially under NDA, you're saying that they then have full rights in the rendering and can sell it freely without my permission or acknowledgment?

I just don't think that's true. If it were true in the way you seem to be saying, nobody would ever hire out illustration at all.

-Sheba

NDA's change the entire ball game.

[Onslaught]

http://www.asai.org/CopyrightLaw

Here's a COPYRIGHT LAW from the ASAI ( American Society of Architectural Illustrators). Hope you can find something here.

[michaelplogue]

By contracting a third party to produce a rendering of a building, they have given them permission to reproduce that building as a "new version of that work." However, this permission does implicitly transfer the rights of the original "works" to the contracted party.

That should say, "does not", right?

-Sheba

Yup... late night typo...

[JTB]

I had a similar problem. It is not so simple as it seems. Rendering is a work I make for the design and the initial model of another engineer.
That gives him the right to say that the final image is his idea so he owns the copyright.
BUT, What if I want to make an advertisement with some of my work that simply shows what I can do to other people's model... Can I???
What if I want to publish the picture I made with the plants I bought, with the people models I bought, with the textures I bought, with the materials I made... etc... or include this picture in my website's gallery section?

I guess there are differences between all countries but these questions are not easy to answer. Maybe it is easy to say what the law describes but it certainly is not easy to decide what's right.

[bathsheba]

I had a similar problem. It is not so simple as it seems. That gives him the right to say that the final image is his idea so he owns the copyright.
BUT, What if I want to make an advertisement with some of my work that simply shows what I can do to other people's model... Can I???

All together now:
It Depends What Your Contract Says.

If you don't have a contract you are probably:
S**t Out Of Luck.

Use a contract, people.

-Sheba

[aitraaz]

Couldn't agree more - *always go with a contract*

[ivox3]

Sheba:

you said:

Well, wait a minute -- if I hire someone to render one of my sculptures using a model that I provide confidentially under NDA, you're saying that they then have full rights in the rendering and can sell it freely without my permission or acknowledgment?

The words 'without express written consent' come to mind.

Let's take an example: If I shoot a pic of the St.Louis Arch, ....who do you think owns the copyright of that image ? ...the architect of that arch or me ?

First off, .....NDA's don't really apply here. Those are reserved for conceptual, trade secret, etc. ideas. It's not applicable towards the visual arts.

If I create a render of one of your models, and you definitely are the creator of that model, .......unless I signed something otherwise, ........I would definitely be the holder of that copyright and I could do what I please with it, ......sell it, ....make copies, distribute it etc.

Believe me, ....if I see one of your sculptures at an art show, ...I take a pic, .......that's mine. It's copyrighted, I can use it .......but but but , .....I can't use it anyway that's a misleading or false representation of the work, e.g., to let people think I created it. Even with this violation, ..it would still be a tough court battle to win.


Back to the idea of me making a render or taking a pic of your work: That work a new 'work'. I own it, ....you might own the copyright of the model and that would be the 3D data of that model, but not likeness, facsimile or image of that model ----unless your were the actual creator of that image. ......but you hired me ! ........so it's mine.

There is no difference between this and the professional photographic world. None.

Think Andy Warhol: Campbell Soupcans, the stupid movie [Space Balls / Star Wars spoof], .......think Weird Al Yankovic, ..think paparazzi. All safely protected under copyright law. They're all profiting off the work of others ..........if they can't stop it, .....how the hell are we going to somehow put an iron clad lock on it? We can't, ....we can only operate within the confines of what is allowable by law.


Artists always get bothered with this, .....because they can't stand the idea that someone could profit from their efforts. First off, .....if someone was actually profiting off my effot, .......the first thing that I'd do would be flattered and then take the necessary precautions to prevent it in the future.

[ivox3]

Okay people, .....there's a common sense-- genereal consensus here and that's obviously the contract.

Basically within any vis. type contract you want to detail usage rights. I think it's pretty common for CG artists to let an unlimited usage occur with any given image. This definitely isn't how commercial photography works. I don't see why it would be any different because of the similarities of the fields, but it is.

In photography, ...the photographer usually retains the copyright in most cases. He/she negotiates to the client the stipulations and usage of any given image, e.g. purpose, advertising/promotional, print ads, web etc. When that client uses their limit, and would like to use the image again, .....they have to pay a royalty or they could also have the option to 'outright' buy the copyright to the image, this depending on the photographer.

In CG, you have to make a decision. Do you want to just be an easy player and give up the copyright to a client and negotiate what your usage will be? or maintain that copyright and dictate what the usage to the client will be? One should definitely think about that and it most certainly makes necessary a clear and concise contract. No confusion. That's the idea.

Many clients will be a little put off by the notion that the law is essentially on the the behalf of the creator of any given work. Meaning, .....they will think they 'automatically' own the copyright to any image produced from 'their' stuff. They will say to themselves, " Well, natually ....that's my stuff and the copyright is mine, .....because without me, ......you would of never been able to render or take a pic of it !! ' Incorrect ! That's not how it works and they're wrong.

So, it can be a delicate matter when informing/educating clients about the natural flow of copyright, but it can be done. It's one of the first things that should be discussed upon accepting a project/job. It's imperative to get this out in the open before any 'property' actually gets created. People will be more open to the ideas of copyright before there is actually something to fight over and also, in the beginning --- there's almost a guarantee to be someone who is confused on these issues and will need clarification or ................expect trouble. good day!

[ricardo]

I think that there is something deeper in the case here: the client failed to pay. So, if there was a contract, it would be void. Period. No rights to use.

I think of this case like this: There is no contract, so the customer can do what he wants. BUT, he didn't pay, and he does not have a receipt or a weaver from the service provider telling that the stuff is free.

Bottom line: Service provider don't get his money but customer can't use the images.

The down side: The customer already has the images, and the service provider can't get the money by his own means. So the customer has a practical advange.

Call the lawyer.

AND, never again, jump into terrorist acts like bringing the site down. It can and will be used against you on court.

Ricardo

[bathsheba]

Let's take an example: If I shoot a pic of the St.Louis Arch, ....who do you think owns the copyright of that image ? ...the architect of that arch or me ?

The appearance of architecture that is built in a public place is in the public domain. Blueprints and descriptions of architecture that is not yet built are not normally public.

First off, .....NDA's don't really apply here. Those are reserved for conceptual, trade secret, etc. ideas. It's not applicable towards the visual arts.

Visual art, especially as it includes architecture, is a business that can have trade secrets and confidential information just like any other.

To take the example I'm most familiar with, most of my sculpture is derived from model data which, if I haven't placed it in the public domain, is a trade secret that can be protected by NDA. If it were not protectable, it wouldn't be possible for me to hire out any part of building my sculpture.

Back to the idea of me making a render or taking a pic of your work: That work a new 'work'. I own it, ....you might own the copyright of the model and that would be the 3D data of that model, but not likeness, facsimile or image of that model ----unless your were the actual creator of that image. ......but you hired me ! ........so it's mine.

Making a render from confidential data is different from taking a picture of something that is being exhibited in public.

I understand that you don't believe that, and I respect that that's your opinion. But I'd like our readers to know that there is no consensus on this point. I think that the word "derivative" in copyright law does mean something substantive, and that it matters whether a work has been made public.

Think Andy Warhol: Campbell Soupcans, the stupid movie [Space Balls / Star Wars spoof], .......think Weird Al Yankovic, ..think paparazzi. All safely protected under copyright law.

All derived from works that are published. Unpublished works are different in at least one important way: they may have the status of confidential trade secrets.

Published works are also protected by copyright against some types of reuse...if you don't believe it, try putting out an X-rated Mickey Mouse comic. Campbell chose to allow Warhol to derive art from the appearance of their product, but that was their choice to make: some corporations choose otherwise.

-Sheba

[michaelplogue]

Let's take an example: If I shoot a pic of the St.Louis Arch, ....who do you think owns the copyright of that image ? ...the architect of that arch or me ?

This is different. In this case the structure falls under the category of public domain and the copyright of the image would go to the photographer. On the other hand, you may not take a picture of an individual or thing in a non-public location without obtaining permission from the subject/owner. Without express permission, you can do absolutely nothing with the photograph and cannot claim copyrights. This would infringe privacy laws. The general rule in the U.S. is that anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place, or places where they have permission to take photos.

If I create a render of one of your models, and you definitely are the creator of that model, .......unless I signed something otherwise, ........I would definitely be the holder of that copyright and I could do what I please with it, ......sell it, ....make copies, distribute it etc.

A similar well known case involes a sculpture by Jeff Koons that was based on a photograph by Art Rogers. In this case, Koons' scupture was ruled as a copyright infringement of Rogers' work.

http://www.asopa.com/publications/2000winter/law.htm

There are many other similar cases that went to court like this.

Artwork found in numerous on-line galleries are regularly forced to be removed as they contain copyrighted material from other artists. It happens all the time.

Think Andy Warhol: Campbell Soupcans, the stupid movie [Space Balls / Star Wars spoof], .......think Weird Al Yankovic,

These sorts of derivitive works were judged under the category of "fair use," and the interpretation of these cases can go either way. Andy Worhol was able to get away his work, whereas Koons - in an attempt to use the fair use defense - did not. Most courts are more lineant towards "parodies' of copyrighted material - as they generally fall under the category of free speech. However, that is not always the case.

..think paparazzi.

If the paparazzi take their photographs from a public location, then they are good to go. If they take pictures while on private property, they are not. If they take a photograph from a public location into a private location (like through the window of a home), then they are not.

However, this is more an issue of privacy laws than copyright laws. If in taking the photos in any way violates privacy laws, they will be unable to publish them in any way and loose any claim to copyrights.

Now, I'm done with this subject...........

[MarkM]

Hey Luis,
Sorry to hear about your miss fortune. If you’re in the usa I would check with your state to see if verbal contracts hold up in court… one route you might consider is small claims court, very inexpensive to file.

“U.S. Copyright law clearly states that the creator of a work owns the rights to that work from the moment it's put into some tangible form”

Regarding the web design copyright…
You own the copyright to graphics, layout design, ect … he would own copyright of content, photographs, ect that he provided. Have you received any monetary payment from him? One suggestion (might be a shot in the dark) contact his web host and request them to take down your content.

But as suggested I would seek legal advice.

[jdp]

I generally don't have a clue about law issues, and copyrighted material seems to be one of the most "hot topic" around these days. I jump in the discussion just to let you know that copyright ain't the only available type of right you can apply to an intellectual property: what about creative commons? Anyone knows about it/use it?:?:

http://creativecommons.org/