| |
In lugnet.market.auction, Bram Lambrecht writes:
> In lugnet.market.auction, Kerry Raymond writes:
> > 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.
Correct. According to the U.S. Copyright Office:
"Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of
authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works such as
poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software and architecture. Copyright
does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it
may protect the way these things are expressed."
also...
"Copyright does not protect ideas, concepts, systems, or methods of doing
something. You may express your ideas in writing or drawings and claim
copyright in your description, but be aware that copyright will not protect
the idea itself as revealed in your written or artistic work."
- source: http://www.copyright.gov/
> To protect ideas, you need a patent. Because of the cost of
> > taking out a patent,
Well... sort of. However, I believe that a patent is more often granted to
an 'invention' of some sort. The machines that make LEGO bricks may be
patented. LEGO models themselves are likely not. Specifically, in that
case, I believe you would be looking at a 'Utility Patent' defined as:
"Utility patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers any new
and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, or compositions of
matters, or any new useful improvement thereof"
- source: http://www.uspto.gov/
However, in the case of the Lamborghini you *might* be referring to
something known as a 'Design Patent' defined as:
"Design patents may be granted to anyone who invents a new, original, and
ornamental design for an article of manufacture"
- source: http://www.uspto.gov/
In which case both models may already be violating a patent likely owned by
the car company.
> 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.
True. Here is an example that sometimes helps people see how copyright can
be used in cases like this:
The idea for a board game cannot be copyrighted. In other words, there is
no copyright currently issued to cover the *idea* of Monopoly. However, the
graphics on the board, cards etc. are covered by copyright. And more
importantly, the instructions for how to play the game are also covered by
copyright. (The name is also Trademarked, but let's not confuse the issue).
So no one can legally make a game under the name Monopoly, using the rules
that are already covered by copyright. See how that works? The idea of the
game itself is open, but if you lock down the specifics, you effectively own
the game and all the rights to it.
> This doesn't make much sense to me. If I create a sculpture, for example, I
> own the copyright to the sculpture, because it is a unique creative work,
> right? So if I build a MOC, I have the copyright to the MOC, not just the
> pictures of it...
Did you publish the instructions to the model? Or just the picture of the
finished piece? If you didn't put up the instructions, and label them as
copyrighted by you, then you may not effectively *own* the copyright. You
are correct in saying that you own the copyright of the images, but your
rights may stop there.
If the eBay person used your images to create his/her own set of
instructions, then I don't think there's much to investigate or pursue here.
If, on the other hand, you have publically displayed instructions for this
model *and* can prove copyright ownership, then you may wish to contact
eBay. Bear in mind that copyright ownership is a two stage process. By
taking a picture, writing a poem, typing out a novel etc. you automatically
own the copyright (at least under U.S. law). However, PROVING that you own
the copyright is an entirely separate issue. You need to register it with a
copyright office, or be able to provide other official evidence that you
were in possession of that original work on a certain date. Proving
copyright is the key to any case.
> Suppose I wrote a short essay. Then I take a photo of the essay and post it on
> the Internet. I own the rights to that photo. Someone else comes along, and
> decides they like the work, so they type part or all of it up, and then publish
> it. To me, that's plagiarism. But, from your point of view, I only owned the
> rights to the photo, so the second individual had every right to copy the idea
> presented in the photo.
I'm not sure that's the best example, and may cloud the issue. But, do keep
this in mind:
20 years ago, none of this would have happened. There was no eBay and
therefore there weren't any folks doing this back then. More importantly,
there wasn't a World Wide Web upon which to publish pics of LEGO models.
Back then your work might have been seen by a few friends and family. So in
just a generation we've come a long way in electronic information sharing.
And along with that there are entirely new issues being faced by politicians
and lawmakers around the world. This is a small example of a very large
problem. You are not alone in your frustration.
> Is there something I'm missing here?
Well, it may be the way in which you are interpreting copyright law. Here
is a nice summary page describing types of intellectual property rights:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/whatis.htm
You may wish to do other searches on the web to see if you can satisfy your
own interest with regard to how much ownership you have over this design.
I hope that some of this information proves useful to you.
All the best,
Allan B.
* An interesting though not entirely related parallel may be found in this
story:
http://oldcomputers.net/compaqi.html
As much as you might not like what they did, I've always thought of this
idea as a stroke of genius. :)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Intellectual property and the Internet (Was "Borrowed" Lamborghini Diablo design on Ebay.de)
|
| (...) This doesn't make much sense to me. If I create a sculpture, for example, I own the copyright to the sculpture, because it is a unique creative work, right? So if I build a MOC, I have the copyright to the MOC, not just the pictures of it... (...) (22 years ago, 29-Dec-02, to lugnet.market.auction, lugnet.general, lugnet.loc.de)
|
35 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
