Quote:
Originally Posted by AJLynn
You're not required to give the 3D model to the architect; in US copyright law, just because a person may legally use something does not mean another person is required to hand over a copy. In the Meshwerks case they were under contract to provide the model files.
|
Oh... right...
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonRashid
As far as I understand things, over here the copyright resides with the creator unless otherwise specified.
Otherwise, would my oils be owned by toyota if I had painted a photoreal image of one of their cars based on materials supplied by them?
|
Jon
this is the problem... your paintings would, unless a copy of a photograph who's copyright was owned by Toyota, be a series of creative decisions that you made, if it is a real good copy of a photo, and a then I am guessing here, but Toyota would have copyright to it.???????..I guess that does not mean they own it though...
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJLynn
What's not clear is why they didn't pursue a breach of contract case,
|
From the document....
The district court agreed. It found that the wire-frame models were merely
copies of Toyota’s products, not sufficiently original to warrant copyright
protection, and stressed that Meshwerks’ “intent was to replicate, as exactly as possible, the image of certain Toyota vehicles.” D. Ct. Op. at 8. Because there was no valid copyright, there could be no infringement, and, having granted summary judgment on the federal copyright claim, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Meshwerks’ state-law contract claim.
Lee