Subject:
|
Re: Official model repository situation
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Fri, 23 Feb 2001 14:22:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1197 times
|
| |
|
|
[disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.]
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Jacob Sparre Andersen writes:
> [ I am still a scientist, not a lawyer ]
>
> Erik:
>
> > I think the DAT file becomes a derivative work. You're just
> > translating the original work into a new medium.
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 the
model (or work in parellel forward) and re-create your own representation in
LDraw .DAT format. The order of steps is different (typically), there
aren't fancy insets and page numbers and backgrounds, and the result is a
text file consisting of mathematical transformations. If necessary, you
could use a cleanroom to do the whole process.
If you assume that the original _model_ in an official set is copyrighted,
then it might be the case that a .DAT file representation is a derivative
work, but it's clearly the printed materials and not the models per se that
bear the copyright; otherwise, without a EULA granting you permission to
build and display a model, you would be violating the copyright every time
you built the model, and there would also be things everywhere saying that
the models and designs are copyrighted so that people would know.
TLC may hold other intellectual property rights on the models (such as look
and feel -- trade dress -- and patents on the individual bricks), but those
would be distinct from copyright and way far away from .DAT file stuff.
And even in the copyright issue, from a .DAT file perspective any copyrights
on the patterns imprinted on decorated elements would be issues with the
individual parts, not the model as a whole because .DAT content is separated
into individually distributable files.
> <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 copyright ("ophavsret") to the
> work in this form, but can not rule over it (use?) in
> a way that is against the copyright ("ophavsretten")
> to the original work.
> </quote>
>
> In a shorter and more specific form:
>
> A LDraw representation of an official LEGO model can
> only be distributed (in public) if both the creator of
> the LDraw representation and LEGO agrees to it.
You're allowed to take and publish your own photos of the sets you build. A
.DAT file representation is much more like a photo of a set than the
original building instruction booklet, especially since you can take the
DAT representation and render it in POV-Ray and have it come out almost
like a photo. Note that you can't go from a .DAT file representation back
to the original building instruction booklets like you can with a JPEG file
scan of the copyrighted material.
If someone shows you a printout of a scan of a building instruction booklet
next to the original, they'll look a little different but overall very
similar -- they contain essentially the same information (assuming the scan
doesn't suck). If someone shows you a printout of a .DAT file fed through
an LDraw viewer next to the original building instruction booklet, it's look
completely different. The .DAT file representation, even after running it
through a viewer, is no substitute for the real thing.
> > If it's allowed under the Fair Play policy, then it's allowed.
>
> I think that is what it comes to.
>
> Since LEGO seems to be aware of what goes on at Lugnet, it is
> reasonable to conclude that they include LDraw representations
> of current models under their "Fair Play policy".
I'm not sure why the Fair Play policy would even be relevant in this case,
but yes, the lugnet.cad.dat.models.sets group
http://news.lugnet.com/cad/dat/models/sets/
was created two years ago for the very purpose of (unofficial) renderings of
official LEGO sets in .DAT file format (plus any followup discussions) and
there isn't an age or out-of-print restriction.
BTW, let's say for a moment that TLC did try to say, "Hey, you guys can't
share .DAT files anymore that represent official LEGO sets still in
production." Fine, how long would it take before someone wrote a file
splitter and merger that stripped the coordinates from the .DAT file into a
separately distributable patch file, and one person distributed the parts
inventory for a set and other person distributed the patch file? Even if
the original broke copyright [sic] neither of the two split portions would
do so individually, nor would the programs that manipulated such files.
Only the person who downloads both and assembles them into a completed .DAT
file would be breaking copyright [sic]. And of course that wouldn't stop a
darn thing. Maybe slow it down a bit, but it would be completely futile.
TLC isn't stupid, and surely it has thought about this and understands it
well, and hopefully has also studied phenomenon like MAME (_M_ultiple
_A_rcade _M_achine _E_mulator - <http://www.mame.net/>) and other similar
projects and understands the subtleties, intracacies, and legalities of the
distribution networks.
So what I'm saying is: (1) I don't believe for a second that a single .DAT
file representing an official LEGO set breaks any LEGO copyrights in the
first place (what I mean is the top-level .DAT file for the set itself, not
the whole collection, which may include parts); and (2) even if it did break
copyright, the ways to circumvent it would be so close to trivial as to
render the issue moot again; and (3) since TLC isn't naive, it hasn't yet
and won't ever try to stomp out this sort of thing.
This just isn't something to worry about.
> This means that linking from the OMR to files at
> lugnet.cad.dat.sets must be legal as well (assuming an ok from Todd).
Certainly. Link to, copy content from for ZIPfile downloads, etc., yes.
--Todd
[disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and this message does not contain legal
advice.]
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Official model repository situation
|
| Todd: (...) I think this is where our way of looking at things diverge. Assuming that somebody wrote this MPD-to-PostScript translater I asked for a few weeks ago we could get quite a bit closer to an automated transformation of a LDraw file into (...) (23 years ago, 23-Feb-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (23 years ago, 23-Feb-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
36 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
