| |
In lugnet.market.auction, John Henry Kruer writes:
> 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 .'
Actually, any creative endeavor is automatically protected by copyright law,
regardless of whether or not the creator actually places a copyright symbol
there. That, and the more proactive step of actually paying the fee and
_applying_ for an official copyright, are simply extra preventative measures
that make a court battle easier to win.
>
> And it would be practically imposible to copyright a model of some car
> company's car.
Well, an actual sculpted scale reproduction yes, but when you're talking
about LEGO, there's enough room for creative interpretation and variation.
After all, you're not going to get an exact replica unless it's life-size,
so you're have myriad choices of how to _approximate_ the subject. Heck, I
could almost convince myself that that model was a Zendertech Fact-4, or a
Lotus, Or a McLaren, etc.
Another thing to think about, the smaller the model is, the fewer pieces, so
eventually your Ferrari model will be a red 2x4 brick...and then it'll look
just like your red 2x4 brick model Hummer, and your red 2x4 brick model fire
truck. And minimilist art can be copyrighted! ;] Anyway, I think we've
talked this subject into the ground...let's wind down before I start
flashing back to alt.wreck.toys.lego. Hmm...is that newsgroup still operating?
--Colin
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
35 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
