robinson@renoir.Berkeley.EDU (Michael Robinson) (08/07/87)
In article <978@pixar.UUCP> good@pixar.UUCP (Come back here, you coward! I'll bite your legs off!) writes: >In article <3656@well.UUCP> ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) writes: [...] >: This is at the request of Craig Good of Pixar, who saw what I did at >:SIGGRAPH, and was a bit perturbed. > >Showing it at SIGGRAPH displayed some carelessness on the part of the Amiga >booth, but distribution would clearly be a copyright violation. You couldn't make that stick in a meeeeliahn yeeers. Unless Leo had access to the mathematical descriptions used to describe the juggling unicycle in "Red's Dream," there is not the slightest grounds for copyright infringement. I refer you to the infamous Volkswagon ad campaign of the early 70's, more recently the MCI rip-offs of the AT&T "Joey called" ads, not to mention the wholesale rip-off of the Amiga bouncing ball by everyone from Atari to Radio Shack. Most of all I refer you to the publications of the Office of Copyrights, Patents and Trademarks, which are the final word in this matter. The only conceivable protection you have in this case is if you were to apply for, and get, a design patent on juggling unicycles. I don't know enough about design patents to know if you could get one on such a broad concept, but I doubt it. [...] >A lot of people, yours truly included, put in a long summer >of 80 to 90-hour weeks to make "Red's Dream", so you'll forgive us if we're >protective of our baby. Thanks for your cooperation. Well maybe you can sue for personal damages based on your hurt feelings. Stranger suits have been filed and won. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mike Robinson USENET: ucbvax!ernie!robinson ARPA: robinson@ernie.berkeley.edu
scotty@l5comp.UUCP (Scott Turner) (08/11/87)
In article <19997@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> robinson@renoir.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Michael Robinson) writes: >You couldn't make that stick in a meeeeliahn yeeers. Unless Leo had Doesn't matter, if Leo can't afford the legal talent to defend himself then they'll win by default. This is what makes playing with large corporations so much fun for small individuals. All the big guys need do is say "We've got lots of lawyers and money, better watch out or you'll get squashed." Witness Sony's recent crushing of that poor woman back east running a restraunt called "Sony's". >access to the mathematical descriptions used to describe the juggling >unicycle in "Red's Dream," there is not the slightest grounds for >copyright infringement. I refer you to the infamous Volkswagon ad Incorrect, if they filed for protection of their on-screen artwork under a copyright then they WOULD have grounds. >bouncing ball by everyone from Atari to Radio Shack. Most of all I refer >you to the publications of the Office of Copyrights, Patents and >Trademarks, which are the final word in this matter. Incorrect again. They are NOT god in this case, the courts are. There have been many cases where this office has said "We will recognize the following XXX as being a valid copyright notice" only to have someone take such a case to court and have the court rule that the LAW (<--- notice that crucial word there) only recognizes certain CLEARLY stated notices. And last I looked these were: Copyright, Copr., c inside a circle. Note that (c) is NOT on that list. If the LAW has been amended to include (c) please let me know. But the OCPT has lost too many times for me to take their judgements on what is and isn't a valid copyright seriously. The LAW lays it out quite nicely thank you and is the key to any court battle, NOT what the OCPT thinks. >The only conceivable protection you have in this case is if you were to >apply for, and get, a design patent on juggling unicycles. I don't know See above comment about copyrighting the on-screen artwork. >>A lot of people, yours truly included, put in a long summer >>of 80 to 90-hour weeks to make "Red's Dream", so you'll forgive us if we're >>protective of our baby. Thanks for your cooperation. I think this is the core of the whole issue. Seems Pixar is a bit miffed that the lowly Amiga in the hands of Leo may be seen as being a better animation tool than Pixar's own high priced stuff. And they should rightly BE concerned. I haven't seen either Red's Dream or Leo's clone of it. But from all the fuss over it, and ESPECIALLY PIXAR'S ATTEMPTS TO SQUASH IT (yes Pixar, you're the MAJOR force behind my thinking what I'm thinking!), that Leo must have done a pretty decent clone. And on pretty inexpensive hardware/software. And like I said, sure Leo was proud of his creation and sure the crowd loved it, BUT it has been PIXAR that has put the stamp of approval on it. (Way to go PIXAR! :) If nothing else Leo can now put this thing down on his resume "Yeah, I'm the guy that made a clone of Red's Dream on the Amiga that was so good Pixar had to squash it." By attempting to nail Leo Pixar is going to elevate him to a level that no matter what they do they'll lose. (except maybe if they hire him) ^^^^ For dem dat cares I got it right no? :) Scott Turner -- UUCP-stick: stride!l5comp!scotty | If you want to injure my goldfish just make UUCP-auto: scotty@l5comp.UUCP | sure I don't run up a vet bill. GEnie: JST | "The bombs drop in 5 minutes" R. Reagan "Pirated software? Just say *NO*!" S. Turner
jabber@pnet02.UUCP (08/11/87)
Well guys, I got my Amy in the first batch & have always been as much
impressed with the users as the with the machine itself. Until lately... I
just fail to see how all you people can be so damn callous about peoples egos!
Pixar didn't create Red's Dream from nowhereness -- it was a bunch of
creative artistic type who wanted to show off what they could do. In my
(not-so-humble) opinion the feelings of the animators are more important than
any legal threats or implications. And the memo from Craig Good seemed pretty
soft-spoken to me. I do believe that Leo's the only one here that's managed
to see this thing in any kind of sympathetic light... Hopefully thats all that
counts... Flame on.
Rich/Jabber
UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd!crash, seismo!scgvaxd!cadovax}!gryphon!pnet02!jabber
INET: jabber@pnet02.CTS.COMmwm@violet.berkeley.edu (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) (10/03/87)
Having finally seen Red's Dream, I thought I'd comment on what's gone on (don't I always?). Firstly, those of you who want to see it should watch for the 20th Tournee of Animation in your neighborhood art theatres. This includes both Red's Dream and Luxo Jr. - and some stuff that's *really* good! Red's Dream is of *much* higher quality than "The Dream ?x ?y"?. Leo has put together a good computer animation. Pixar has something that makes me think they use models in the film, and not computer generated images. I can see where Pixar is coming from. Leo's stuff is good enough to notice (better than some animations in movies in the last few years). However, it't not in the same league as what Pixar is doing. I'd be upset if I was doing what they do, and someone thought it was of the quality that "The Dream ?x ?y" was. Also, I'd like to point out that Pixar got the juggling pattern "right", whereas Leo has Red doing it "the hard way." <mike -- Love and affection, Mike Meyer Of the corporate kind. mwm@berkeley.edu It's just belly to belly, ucbvax!mwm Never eye to eye. mwm@ucbjade.BITNET