jackb602

This decision seems to raise a lot more questions than it answers.

Digital Models Not Subject To Copyright

Meshwerks loses copyright appeal

If the modelers can't copyright their work, do they have no say in how their client uses the models? Does this mean they'll have to turn down this kind of work in the future, or charge exorbitant rates since they are effectively relinquishing all rights to their work?

If the models have no copyright, can others use them freely, or just the original copyright holder (i.e. Toyota)? If the former is the case, then that would affirm that we are free to incorporate recognized furniture pieces and vehicles into our renderings.

I didn't have the patience to read the entire legal decision, but it would be interesting to have a lawyer explain the implications of the decision.

Jack

__________________
Built Light

AJLynn

Key phrase: "but added nothing original to them"

leed

Having quickly read through the document I still am confused , I think this is only one case and reference is given to the fact that Meshworks did not do anything but replicate the car, no textures and scene setup were done by them....... so if they did they would have created a copyrightable image... but the car mesh would still be copyrighted to Toyota.... The more I look into copyright and Intellectual Property the more grey there seems to be.

One thing that bothers me is that there is no such things 3d computer objects, they are seen to be 2d representations of something. I do not know if this is true or not and please anybody with thoughts on this please post your thoughts...

As I am an visualiser, what I gleam from this is that the images I produce are copyrighted to me, but the geometry used does not....is that what this ruling is saying????

Lee

__________________
www.buzzbox.eu

AJLynn

Apologies in advance, it's not possible to write about this sort of thing without being tedious, but the perception that this ruling is harmful isn't entirely accurate and it's important (at least for the Americans here, and specifically those working inside the 10th circuit where this opinion is binding).

Here are the parts I think are important:

...

...

...

So the court has agreed with Toyota and their advertising firm, and the vis firm the ad firm contracted, that the subcontractor who did the modeling could not copyright the models because they contain no original creative intent (they are unadorned copies). Later on they write:

Later on they discuss photography, and a case in which the Supreme Court ruled that a photo was copyrightable:

And then, later, the most important paragraph in the thing as far as we're concerned:

I'm not going to quote any further, because if this came up in court with somebody here suing a client, that would be the part your lawyer would quote - this opinion does not set precedent that digital models can not be copyrighted; it actually does the complete opposite. It rules that if a digital artist applies any creativity to the work, even if it's not done skillfully or if it's obvious, a court must recognize the digital artist's creative work without judging the merits of the creative expression. They specify (but do not limit the ruling to) a situation in which the artist is doing the same sort of work a photographer might, in lighting and composing the shot. Meshwerks did none of this (in the PDF of the ruling, Appendix A, the wireframes, is Meshwerk's work, and B, the renders, is by the firm that contracted the modeling to Meshwerks). In this case, the court ruled that digital models and image can be copyrighted, but that these particular models can not because they are done deliberately without artistic expression (if the car had been shown on a road in front of a tree is the example they give - in that case it would have been copyrightable).

Interestingly, thought Meshwerks alludes to breach of contract, they do not appear to have produced a contract or any evidence thereof and the court does not address breach of contract in the ruling.

I think the lesson here is you don't give your models to the client without a written contract on how they may be used, but even if you did, if they wanted to reuse your model they would not be able to use the materials, lights, camera, and any modeling that is not taken exactly from the architect's drawing.

leed

My thoughts at the moment are completely the revers of this.

I see it as 'The architect has rights to the model as it is a complete copy of their designed work.'
You are right about the textures and lighting, they are seen to be creative elements, but the geometry is not.....In essence you can not copyright a computer model of a building if it is drawn to a degree of accuracy from cad information... what you can copyright is an image created from the geometry...

Lee

__________________
www.buzzbox.eu

crazy homeless guy

gee thanks.

__________________
travis schmiesing

Jeff Mottle

I read the court ruling PDF in full and I do understand the basis for the ruling, but it left me with a few questions:

1. Why did meshworks not allow the second court to rule on the breach of contract?
2. Does copyright law supercede any contract law, assuming as the ruling suggested there is nothing original added to the model?
3. If they had been allowed to change out the car's emblem with say the Meshworks logo (modelled) or been allowed to texture it with a custom paint job, would this make the entire model now copyrightable, or is there a percentage of change from the original that makes something copyrightable?
4. If a company is selling 3d models of cars (for the sake of argument, exact replicas with photographs of the actual car being used as textures), does this mean I could steal them and then sell them as my own as they do not own a copyright? Or does the license agreement protect them? If so, how does the license agreement differ from Meshworks contract for "one time use"?

Very interesting case.

__________________
Jeff Mottle
CGarchitect.com

JonRashid

As I understand it in EU states the copyright lies inherently with the creator of the asset. This was modified in the nineties to cover programmers who used tools they had previously created in the completion of a subsequently, copyright covered piece of software. Under old legislation the owner of the copyright also had rights on all tools used in its creation. 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?

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.

What's not clear is why they didn't pursue a breach of contract case, because if what they said about having a licensing agreement that allowed only for use for one round of ads was true, the breach of contract would be a far less gray area than a breach of copyright; especially given that the case the court cited of the liquor bottle photo did not support their argument and that they had already failed once. They could have just tossed on breach of contract for good measure, it wouldn't have required tthem to do much more work to make the case. The only thing I can think of is that the contract was weak; maybe it was worded in such a way that it assumed Meshwerks owned copyright, and therefore was granting license to use its copyright only in this instance. If that were case, breach of contract could have already been dismissed by the lower court with Meshwerks deciding not to pursue it on appeal (gray areas a a good thing there) or Meshwerks might have never filed it in the first place.

leed

Oh... right...

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...



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

__________________
www.buzzbox.eu