| |
In lugnet.market.auction, Kerry Raymond writes:
> Copyrights can simply be asserted by
the creator of a
> work at no cost (just write a copyright notice).
IANAL, and it's been at
least a decade since I read a book
on copyright law, but at least in the US copyrights exist
as
soon as the work is created. In other countries things
are different; for example, many
require the (c) copyright
symbol to assert copyright and Belize, I believe, requires
the
note "All rights reserved."
> What if someone uses your MOC photo on brickshelf to
create
their own model or something similar? Copyright
> protects the image, not the idea
that the
image may
> represent. To protect ideas, you need a patent. Because
> of the cost of
taking out
a patent, most of us would not
> patent our Lego designs unless we expect to make a • lot
> of money • from them. Even if the image is not of the
> finished MOC but is instead
instructions for
building
> your MOC, it is still the text/images that is protected
> by
the copyright, not the
actions described by the
> text/images. In this case, someone else • cannot copy/print
> the • instructions but they can look/build from the
>
picture/instructions.
>
> Having been • built from the picture/instructions, the
>
resultant model is the property of the person who
built
> it (assuming they owned the bricks) • and they are free to
> sell it to anyone without any • requirement to give credit
> or payment • to you, so long as they don't include a copy
> of the • image of the MOC or its instructions.
>
They can take photos of their own model (created from
your image) and these new images
belong to them and they
> can distribute these. So, yes, they • can look at your
> image, build • exactly the same model, and then photograph
> it at exactly the • same angle with the same
>
background and produce a virtually identical image to
> yours, but
they have not breached
copyright by doing so.
> It would only be a breach of copyright if they • took
> your image into • a photo editor (or similar) and actually
> used some of it to create
their own image. If it is
an
> original photo of their own model (no matter how
> derivative the
model is), it is not a
breach of your
> copyright.
Two points: First, copyright protects
numerous things
besides text and photos. In particular, it protects works
of art such as
sculpture and
paintings. Thus, a reasonably
sophisticated[1] arragement of Lego elements
built for
aesthetic purposes should have no difficulty falling into
a category protected
by
copyright. Thus, the model itself
is protected. Second, copyright also gives the creator
transferable rights to create derivative works. That's
why I could be (successfully)
sued
if I tried to write a
sequel to _Amendment of Life_[2] or make a movie out of
it without
having
acquired the appropriate rights from the
creator. The process described above of
reconstructing
a copyrighted work and consciously taking a photo that
resembles that of
the creator positively reeks of creating
derivative works in violation of copyright
laws.
TWS Garrison
[1] Sticking two bricks together would probably fail under
the
"grocery list" clause that does not extend protection
to simple lists (of ingredients,
etc.).
[2] That new Catherine Aird book which comes out next
month. . .Amazon is already
down to their last copy, and
my local library doesn't have a copy yet. . .
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
35 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
