kcampbel@uafhp.uark.edu (Keith Alan Campbell) (12/31/90)
I recently got a message from Allen Hastings, author of LightWave, which follows along the lines of another recent message or two about the rights associated with commercial entertainment products. I believe it was Viet Ho who uploaded the Berlin songs without realizing his gaffe. Allen was questioning how to get MGM approval to include "2001" spacecraft objects as part of LightWave's Phone Book (3-D object files). If anyone has any ideas or hard information on this process, contact me or share it here on the net. Don Kennedy Vision Quest Systems email will be forwarded from kcampbel@uafhp.uark.edu
amigan@cup.portal.com (R Michael Medwid) (12/31/90)
I find it hard to believe that making a model of a space ship similar to the one in 2001 would be considered copyright infringement. If you used the name "2001" to promote your product..not *that* would probably not be copacetic. In art if you alter an image (an I imagine this caries over to models as well) even slightly you have legally made something new. For example, in Paris there is a very famous poster which features the mona-lisa with a moustach and the letters LHOOQ at the bottom (if you speak french, say each letter one at a time to find the hidden meaning). Anyhow that was not copywrite infringment of a national treasure evidently because the image was different..it had a moustache. Of course Vanilla Ice (yes I know, gag me!) is being sue by the leader of Wild Cherry because he uses a large sample of their "Play That Funky Music White Boy" without having obtained the rights. So really we need a true "leagle eagle" to help us out here. Out-a-here. -Mike
dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave P. Schaumann) (12/31/90)
In article <37411@cup.portal.com> amigan@cup.portal.com (R Michael Medwid) writes: >I find it hard to believe that making a model of a space ship similar to the >one in 2001 would be considered copyright infringement. Lawyers do a lot of things that are hard to believe. I heard that Mr. Kubrik had the first model(s?) of the Discovery destroyed after filming of 2001 was over so it wouldn't be seen in every grade-b flick to follow for the next 10 years. I believe if they wanted to prosecute, they would have strong legal ground to stand on. > If you used the >name "2001" to promote your product..not *that* would probably not be >copacetic. In art if you alter an image (an I imagine this caries over >to models as well) even slightly you have legally made something new. > [ details of Mona Lisa alterations deleted ] Seeing as how it was painted hundreds of years ago, the image of the Mona Lisa is probably in the public domain. Lots of classicl music (the *music*, not the performances) is in the public domain. I do not believe that slight alterations is enough. If I got together with three of my buddies, we called ourselves "The Beedlz" and recorded "Elenor Rigby", you can bet copyright lawyers would be all over our butts in a second. Digitizing samples of songs or pictures of TV shows/movies probably fall under the same rules as quoting from a work for review or research. At least, I believe a strong case could be made for this interpretation. Disclaimer: I have no knowledge of the legal technicalities involved, these are just my opinions. > >Out-a-here. > >-Mike Shouldn't this be in misc.legal or somesuch? Of course, my site doesn't carry that group, so if it does go there, I'll never know. Dave Schaumann | You are in a twisty maze of little dave@cs.arizona.edu | C statements, all different. We want 2.0! We want 2.0! We want 2.0! We want 2.0! We want 2.0!
bj@cbmvax.commodore.com (Brian Jackson) (12/31/90)
In article <37411@cup.portal.com> amigan@cup.portal.com (R Michael Medwid) writes: >I find it hard to believe that making a model of a space ship similar to the >one in 2001 would be considered copyright infringement. If you used the >name "2001" to promote your product..not *that* would probably not be >copacetic. In art if you alter an image (an I imagine this caries over >to models as well) even slightly you have legally made something new. But this isn't a case of "art". It is a case of commercial product merchandising. Allen and company stand to make MONEY from the use of these images - images that are not in the public domain. >For example, in Paris there is a very famous poster which features >the mona-lisa with a moustach and the letters LHOOQ at the bottom >(if you speak french, say each letter one at a time to find the hidden >meaning). Anyhow that was not copywrite infringment of a national >treasure evidently because the image was different..it had a moustache. The use of the Mona Lisa is "allowed" because there is no one that has the "rights" to the image. If Da Vinci was around today and found you using the object that -he- created to make money without asking him first... The same applies to the models from 2001. If they can be recognized by folks as being from 2001 and the models are being used for profit (not artwork that hangs for show only) then you have to get the ok from the one that has the 'rights'. Also, there is a certain difference between "commentary" (ie, the political cartoons in the newspaper) and "product". "Fair use." And even in these cases the author will try and get permission or, at the least, will add a line to the thing like "with apologies to Da Vinci". Allen Hastings is right in seeking permission for this use since the purpose is to specifically use the 2001 spaceship(s). If that weren't the case then he could use any old thing. But he wants (wanted?) to make use of the fact that the 2001 images are recognizable by the general public. bj >-Mike ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | Brian Jackson Software Engineer, Commodore-Amiga Inc. GEnie: B.J. | | bj@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com or ...{uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!bj | | "Macho's cool but please don't eat the urinal cakes." | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
kherron@ms.uky.edu (Kenneth Herron) (12/31/90)
amigan@cup.portal.com (R Michael Medwid) writes: >I find it hard to believe that making a model of a space ship similar to the >one in 2001 would be considered copyright infringement. >In art if you alter an image (an I imagine this caries over >to models as well) even slightly you have legally made something new. >For example, in Paris there is a very famous poster which features >the mona-lisa with a moustach and the letters LHOOQ at the bottom...that >was not copywrite infringment...treasure evidently because the image was >different..it had a moustache. It's not copyright infringement because they didn't have copyrights back when the Mona Lisa was painted, and if they did, no copyright lasts long enough to protect it through the present day. In other words, there's no copyright infringement because the Mona Lisa isn't copyrighted. However, if the Mona Lisa _did_ have a copyright on it, then this LHOOQ painting you describe would be a pretty clear case of a derivative work, and hence a copyright violation. Copyright laws protect against derivative works. If they released 3D models that were obvious copies of the models in 2001, this would most likely be an infringement. If they were "sufficiently different" but similar designs, this would be okay. But it's up to the court to decide what's sufficiently different, and MGM has a lot more legal resources than a software company. Followups to misc.legal, this is not the group for copyright discussions. -- Kenneth Herron kherron@ms.uky.edu University of Kentucky (606) 257-2975 Department of Mathematics "Never trust gimmicky gadgets" -- the Doctor
smithwik@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (R. Michael Smithwick -- FSN) (01/01/91)
In article <604@caslon.cs.arizona.edu> dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave P. Schaumann) writes: <In article <37411@cup.portal.com> amigan@cup.portal.com (R Michael Medwid) writes: <>I find it hard to believe that making a model of a space ship similar to the <>one in 2001 would be considered copyright infringement. < <Lawyers do a lot of things that are hard to believe. I heard that Mr. Kubrik <had the first model(s?) of the Discovery destroyed after filming of 2001 was <over so it wouldn't be seen in every grade-b flick to follow for the next 10 <years. I believe if they wanted to prosecute, they would have strong legal <ground to stand on. There is a company currently producing models of the 2001 spacecraft under license from Turner Entertainment (owners of the rights). So it might not be too difficult to get legal rights to do the actual models instead of clones. I recently got my Discovery kit, it's quite impressive, and they promise a Space Station Hilton kit in the near future. >> mike smithwick << Any opinions are my own since nobody else would ever want them. "Colonize Cyberspace!"