 | | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Official Model Repository Standards
|
|
Ok, I've made some changes to the Standards. One thing I forgot to say in my post was that for more information on the repository and for previous posts see www.ldraw.org/repository Anyway, here is what I made for changes... Moved "Terms" to the (...) (24 years ago, 17-Feb-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
