 | | Re: Official model repository situation
|
|
[disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.] (...) Ahh, but it's nothing at all like the original work. You're not even translating the copyrighted building instruction booklet. You use the building instruction booklet to build the model, then you disassemble (...) (24 years ago, 23-Feb-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Official model repository situation
|
|
[ I am still a scientist, not a lawyer ] Erik: (...) <quote src="Danish copyright law" translation="on-the-fly"> § 4. One, who translates, reworks or in another way adapts a work, including transforming it to another form of litterature or art, has (...) (24 years ago, 23-Feb-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Official model repository situation
|
|
(...) I think the DAT file becomes a derivative work. You're just translating the original work into a new medium. It's like you've written down a scene-by-scene description of a film. If it's allowed under the Fair Play policy, then it's allowed. (...) (24 years ago, 23-Feb-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Official model repository situation
|
|
[disclaimer: I am not a lawyer] (...) It's very different. Copying instructions is copying instructions. Copying .DAT files is copying text files that list parts with x,y,z coordinates and orientations. (...) A copyright 20 years old may be as valid (...) (24 years ago, 23-Feb-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Official model repository situation
|
|
(...) I see the situation this way. On set instructions, it may say (c)1999 LEGO Group. As many copyright disclaimers say something like this: No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or (...) (24 years ago, 22-Feb-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Official model repository situation
|
|
(...) What would that mean for Star Wars scenes? --Todd (24 years ago, 21-Feb-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Official model repository situation
|
|
Ryan: (...) The whole idea of the OMR is very much in a grey area copyright-wise, so I suggest that those in charge of the OMR contact LEGO, explain the situation, and ask them what they find is reasonable. Jacob PS: You could also ask your own (...) (24 years ago, 20-Feb-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Official model repository situation
|
|
And here's another issue. The Brickshelf has self-imposed restrictions to not have scans of instructions for sets from 1997 or later. Should the OMR have a similar restriction? --Ryan (24 years ago, 20-Feb-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Official model repository situation
|
|
(...) Ok by me --Todd (24 years ago, 19-Feb-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Official Model Repository Standards
|
|
Good job Ryan, Thanks for summarizing the long awaited OMR guidelines. Two comments: 1. Having the error.dat file is a right place to declare the eventual incompleteness of the model (missing, yet unmodelled parts etc). I would require the modellers (...) (24 years ago, 19-Feb-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
