| |
But the problem with that argument is that, in the case mentioned, the
notecard had been copyrighted. If somebody went and stole the design, he
could get into trouble for copyright infrigment. The defense argued saying
that they hadn't copied very much from the card. But if the subject in case
(such as Bram's model) isn't copyrighted, the only response will be, 'yeah,
he stole some ideas without credit from you, but you can't do anything about
it .'
And it would be practically imposible to copyright a model of some car
company's car. Even if the copying is totally dispicable and unethical,
there is nothing that Bram can do about it, other then hope that the seller
is moral, and dosn't do it again.
-JHK
In lugnet.market.auction, Colin Robert Gutierrez writes:
> I think this is more accurately treated as a work of art, _not_ an invention.
>
> Let me quote Rogers v. Koons and Sonnabend Gallery, Inc. (960 F.2d 301,
> cert. denied 113 S. Ct. 365).
> Artist Jeff Koons purchased a notecard with a photograph of a couple sitting
> on a bench holding eight puppies in their arms. He then made 4 life-sized
> sculptures which closely reproduced the image, with some differences, such
> as adding flowers to the woman's hair, changing the back of the bench, etc.
> Three of the sculptures were subsequently sold for a large sum of money.
> When the photographer Art Rogers found out about it and sued, Koons tried to
> argue that the photograph was not original and shouldn't be copyrightable to
> begin with. The court disagreed, saying, "the quantity of originality that
> need be shown is modest--only a dash of it will do." and further, "No copier
> may defend the act of plagiarism by pointing out how much of the copy he has
> not pirated."
>
> That being said, I believe the white model would easily fall under the
> category of infringement. Bram's model, on the other hand would probably
> not be infringement, since it is a work of art derived from a mass-produced
> machine that isn't technically a work of art. (although most people
> including myself would say it is a wonderful work of art.) Lamborghini
> could probably argue it, but they couldn't care less about 130 euros.
> Fair Use, on the other hand, protects such things as displaying images of
> the art to promote an article about the artist for example, or the temporary
> cacheing of images on one's computer for browsing.
>
> If you are interested in a more complete account of Rogers v.
> Koons/Sonnabend Gallery, Inc., have a look at the article in the 2001
> Artist's & Graphic Designer's Market, by Writer's Digest Books.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
35 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
|
|
|
|
