Copyright

[mgh]

In the case of Toyota v Meshworks , United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit held that a digital model is of a car is not copyrightable. The court’s judgment was:

Originality is the sine qua non of copyright. If the basic design reflected in a work of art does not owe its origin to the putative copyright holder, then that person must add something original to that design, and then only the original addition may be copyrighted. In this case, Meshwerks copied Toyota’s designs in creating digital, wire-frame models of Toyota’s vehicles. But the models reflect ,that is, “express,” no more than the depiction of the vehicles as vehicles. The designs of the vehicles, however, owe their origins to Toyota, not to Meshwerks, and so we are unable to reward Meshwerks’ digital wire-frame models, no doubt the product of significant labor, skill, and judgment, with copyright protection.

In the light of this, what parts of an add-on have sufficient originality to qualify for copyright?

 

[hcornea]

If you model a Boeing plane, Boeing still owns the design and appearance copyright for the plane.

A user who purchases your model does not ( on the basis of this decision) own the rights to the model to use as they wish. If Boeing wanted to use your model, they probably could, with impunity. (personally I'd be honoured)

What the lawyers here failed to do was explain properly the individuality that the 3D model brings.

If you concentrate on the appearance and design of the geometry, then the model adds nothing to the original design (hence the comparison with a picture). it is a "copy" and can (therefore) not be copyrighted.

What the model does add is the functional aspects ....

it can be rotated, scaled, rendered in different light and manipulated.

The functionallity of the model should have been the focus for the case IMO (as a non-lawyer)

This was, after all, the reason they were contracted to design it ....

otherwise they would have just used a car, wouldn't they!

 

[mgh]

The reasons the lawyers didn't concentrate on functionality is because

1 Functional elements and “useful articles” not protectable.

Copyright protection in the United States is historically conferred only on those works that are creative works of authorship, and ideas are expressly excluded from copyright protection:

In no case does copyright protection for an original work of
authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method
of operation, concept, or discovery, regardless of the form in which
it is described, explained, illustrated or embodied in such work.

17 U.S.C. § 102(b) (2007).

http://www.ipo.org/AM/Template.cfm?...mplate=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=15912

 

[lionheart]

Interesting....

A very delicate balance of 'who owns this?'




Bill

 

[hcornea]

Yet again, the law struggles to grapple with areas of specialist knowledge.

Oh well.

 

[dmaher]

“In the light of this, what parts of an add-on have sufficient originality to qualify for copyright?”

Regardless of what an electronic work depicts it is typically a unique and original set of hand built instructions...worthy of some form of legal protection I'd hope Lawyers can debate about the specifics For now games and game content are not at all like photographs. The Toyota case was particularly interesting because the model in question was a scan…and it could be argued it was very much like a “photograph”. Particularly if you were unfamiliar with 'computers' Still, I tihnk in practice the norm all these years later is one-time use. Law can be so slow and methodical, but the pace of change isn’t. Maybe someday it will be sufficiently broadened to protect add-ons...but maybe not too
It could be - for the time being whoever is disposed to pay for the debate is right in the eyes of the law.

Lol, meanwhile debate rages on a proprietary design commonly known as ‘rectangle’

 

[hcornea]

A rectangle can be considered two triangles bonded together at their longest edge.

As I hold a valid patent for the triangle, all polygon modelling is now my Intellectual property.

Bank account details will be forwarded shortly for you all to pay your royalties.

Thankyou for your attention.

 

[mgh]

The Toyota case was particularly interesting because the model in question was a scan…and it could be argued it was very much like a “photograph”.

The models were "digital wire-frame models" of Toyota’s vehicles - see Appendix A of the link.

 

[dmaher]

The models were digital wire-frames of Toyota’s vehicles.

That's correct - and the meshes were generated by scanning actual Toyota vehicles.
The process is analogous to photography. But it's a red herring.

Meshwerks’ products was attributable to the Toyota designers who conceived of
the vehicle designs in the first place

...focusing on the artistic likeness, and not the coherent computer code that Meshwerks was employed to generate.
It's not a Toyota and it's not even an image of a Toyota...it's computer code - instructions - a digital file.

 

[bobbyjack]

Wait a minute! It is I that hold own the patent on what you call a triangle. It's true name is "Three Sided Bi Flapper On a Single Ocular Surface". I guess my lawyer, Guido ( of Guido, Guido and Guido) will be showing up at your place to break both your legs...I mean serve your head on a platter...I mean serve you with court papers. You will know him right away. He's the bald guy with no neck and hair on his thumbs.

I wish we didn't need copyright. I know we do.

I also dislike that when I buy something, they offer a warranty. "This camera is $100. And for $25 more, we'll fix it if it breaks in 6 months." If your camera is so good, why do I have to pay extra for you to fix it. I know there is more to it than that, but still...

I once bought a band saw from a reputable company. I also bought the extended warranty. Sure enough, I burned up the blade guide. I called for service. It was two weeks before someone could come out to look at it. He said he would have to order parts. A week later he called and said it would be 4 weeks to get the parts. In 5 weeks, he called and said it would be 2 weeks before he could come out to install the parts. It didn't cost me anything, but my saw was down for over 2 months while I was trying to build and sell guitars.

Bob

 

[n4gix]

I hate to say this fellows, but I hold the copyright on the vertex! My solicitors from the firm of Dewey, Cheatem, Screwem, and Howe will be in contact eventually...

...as soon as I can sell enough assembled vertices to pay their huge retainer.

 

[bobbyjack]

Here we go...the guys in the pin-striped suits with the violin cases are on their way.

Bob

 

[jdhaenens]

In my mind a copy is just that. Anyone with a modicum of skill can make a box that looks like a specific building. The box is not necessarily an artistic impression (which is copyrightable) of the building. The box is merely a wireframe that represents the shape of the building.

Some of the larger and more original architecture firms have copyrighted their original shapes. Some have tried and failed.

I always believed that it's the textures that carry most of the intellectual property in a given scenery. With the texture you turn that shape into an artistic impression of the original building (or whatever). Between the texture and the unwrap modifier i believe is 85% of the IP.

I may be completely wrong but I believe the textures are what's copyrightable in a scenery.

Jim

 

[hcornea]

...as soon as I can sell enough assembled vertices to pay their huge retainer.

Now that the unlimited export technique has been mastered, the royalties should be stacking up very quickly.

Perhaps if I collect 10% on each triangle, and you can have 10% for each vertex in each triangle.

... hold on .. that sounds more like a pyramid selling scheme, and we all know what pyramids are made of ...

 

[mgh]

In my mind a copy is just that. Anyone with a modicum of skill can make a box that looks like a specific building. The box is not necessarily an artistic impression (which is copyrightable) of the building. The box is merely a wireframe that represents the shape of the building.

Some of the larger and more original architecture firms have copyrighted their original shapes. Some have tried and failed.

I always believed that it's the textures that carry most of the intellectual property in a given scenery. With the texture you turn that shape into an artistic impression of the original building (or whatever). Between the texture and the unwrap modifier i believe is 85% of the IP.

I may be completely wrong but I believe the textures are what's copyrightable in a scenery.

Jim

But surely, "anyone with a modicum of skill can make a texture that looks like a specific building"??

Meshweeks argument that skill was involved:

In other words, the vehicles’ data points (measurements) were mapped onto a computerized grid and the modeling software connected the dots to create a “wire frame” of each vehicle. At this point, however, the on-screen image remained far from perfect and manual “modeling” was necessary. Meshwerks personnel fine-tuned or, as the company prefers it, “sculpted,” the lines on screen to resemble each vehicle as closely as possible. Approximately 90 percent of the data points contained in each final model, Meshwerks represents, were the result not of the first-step measurement process, but of the skill and effort its digital sculptors manually expended at the second step.

was rejected by the court and the grounds of lack of originality. I suggest there's no originality in copying the appearance of a building.

 

[jdhaenens]

I'd invite you to take a look at any custom model and say truthfully that there is no art involved in the texturing. I'm much more of a technician rather than an artist, but a texture doesen't have to look like a dutch master's work to have art and artistic technique. Look at Orbx, look at anything in the showroom that's custom, and if it differs from the original (which it always will), you have art and that is a matter of intellectual property. I absolutely agree with your point. Originality = art! We're just painting landscapes with electronic means.

But at the same time, a photograph of a building or of about anything else may be copyrighted by the photographer. Neat, huh?

BTW I own the decimal point (and comma in Europe) and all your engineering numbers are mine!

 

[mgh]

it isn't a question of whether it's art but whether it's sufficiently original. Making a straightforward copy doesn't involve originality.

On the point of photographs, the judgement deals with that:

...then that person must add something original to that design, and then only the original addition may be copyrighted.

What is original in the case of a building texture?

 

[arno]

Hi,

This is an interesting topic. What I find interesting that this is a case of Toyota (who owns the copyright to the real car) and the modeller. I wonder if the result would be the same if it was a case between someone else and the modeller.

And this is a case in the US, the copyright laws are not the same in each country. So that is another interesting factor.

 

[jdhaenens]

Why, the photograph I made it from, which was copyrighted by the photographer (me) and modified to fit on the structured polygon. If you make a model from an original copyrighted photograph, the model must surely be a derivative work that holds the same intellectual property protections as the photograph, wouldn't you think?


I'm bidding on parenthises. The distributive law will soon be mine!

 

[rhumbaflappy]

As I understand this, the copyright to the wireframe model was rejected. But, they did not state the copyright for the wireframe was awarded to Toyota, either.

Paraphrasing, the car exists as car, and as such, the 3d mesh is not copyrightable. A photograph of a Toyota might be copyrightable as it may involve lighting, props, posing... but the dimensions and colors of the Toyota is not itself copyrightable, by this decision.

This is a 2-edged sword! A mesh of a 737 is not copyrightable, by this decision. Nor would it's coloring or logos as used in a sim be copyrightable... either by Boeing or Microsoft or the FS developer that created the mesh and coloring.

The actual 737 is copyrightable, as are it's components, but meshes or colorizing cannot be. A posed photograph of the 737 can be copyright, but a mesh derived by viewing or digitizing that photo cannot.

Very odd and sticky assumptions of the law are working here.

But, here's the problem:

Meshworks was not awarded any legal fees for their efforts. It cost them and Toyota a great deal of money to establish almost nothing legally. If one of us were to develop a 737, and Boeing decided to drag us to court, could we survive the economic realities of defending ourselves through the initial and appeals process? Probably not. And there lies my advice. If possible, don't place yourself in the position of being crushed by a corporate giant. By all means avoid the court system and copyright battles. It is entirely possible to win and be financially ruined for life as a result. I care much less about legalities and the law, than I do about the well being of our forum members. Even if you are right, take into consideration the cost of being right. Be prudent and protect yourselves.

Dick