Chosen Few Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Baloo Uriza wrote: Therein lies the reason why I don't reccommend business models that rely on restrictive licensing unless they're willing to consider a copyright attorney as part of the required overhead. You're pretty much setting yourself up for failure otherwise. More to the point, no one should ever enter into any business that he or she does not fully understand. Yes, you should absolutely have a lawyer, but you also have a responsibility to educate yourself, at least to a basic level, on the legalities under which your business is governed. That includes not just copyright laws, but also tax laws, financial regulations, contract laws, labor laws, or whatever else fits. If you don't educate yourself on these things, then about the only thing your lawyer will have time to do will be to constantly pull you out of the holes you dig yourself into. As soon as any one of those holes gets too deep, you're out of business (or worse). Being a business owner is not easy, and it's certainly not for everyone. A lot of people tend to have this fantastical dreamy-eyed view of, "One day I'll have my own business, and then I'll live happily ever after." In truth, owning a business is significantly harder than just working at one. The first person I ever worked for once said, "You don't own a business. It owns you." Truer words were never spoken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baloo Uriza Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Chosen Few wrote: Baloo Uriza wrote: Therein lies the reason why I don't reccommend business models that rely on restrictive licensing unless they're willing to consider a copyright attorney as part of the required overhead. You're pretty much setting yourself up for failure otherwise. More to the point, no one should ever enter into any business that he or she does not fully understand. Yes, you should absolutely have a lawyer, but you also have a responsibility to educate yourself, at least to a basic level, on the legalities under which your business is governed. That includes not just copyright laws, but also tax laws, financial regulations, contract laws, labor laws, or whatever else fits. Oh, no doubt. I pity the fool pulling down decent coin in SL that doesn't have a business license from the appropriate authority and a tax ID. Great way to go down like Al Capone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masami Kuramoto Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Chosen Few wrote: Once again, if you can find a single point of law that prohibits the sculpting or digital modeling of an already built buidling, go ahead and post it, and I'll happily recant what I've said on the subject. Frankly, I am getting tired of wading through yet another one of your walls of text where you repeat the same nonsense over and over again. The law you are asking me to post here has already been posted multiple times. It explicitly permits pictorial representations of copyrighted architectural works. It does not permit graphic or sculptural representations. Your conclusion that "pictorial" actually means "pictorial, graphic and sculptural" is backed up by nothing. The law means what it says, and if it meant all three, it would mention all three, just like it does at other places. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chosen Few Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Masami Kuramoto wrote: Frankly, I am getting tired of wading through yet another one of your walls of text where you repeat the same nonsense over and over again. Throwing in the towel? Well, I guess it comes as no surprise that you don't want to read anymore. All sigs were you were barely reading in the first place. You've clearly got a lot to learn. It's a shame you're so unwilling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baloo Uriza Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Good God, Chosen, show some respect. He's trying to have an intelligent dialogue with you on the subject, and you're just trying to fillibuster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masami Kuramoto Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Chosen Few wrote: Throwing in the towel? No, I'm declaring victory because I debunked all your claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwakkelde Kwak Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 I've done a bit of kintergarden research (most research is if you ask me, or at least the better part of it...) So I found the following (17 USC § 120) : Section 102 of the Copyright Act, deals with the scope of exclusive rights in architectural works. Subsection (a) states “ Pictorial Representations Permitted- The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.” The terms "graphic" and "sculptural" are not mentioned. The way I read the article, is it is allowed to make pictures (or drawings, paintings, sketches etc.) of a building as long as it is visible from a public place, nothing more, nothing less. Obviously the copyrights on architectural work are focussed on RL work and RL infringement (building an actual building), so I'm having a really hard time finding anything about 3D modelling, which I personally wouldn't qualify as pictorial. I've made plenty of buildings in SL, most 100% original, some copies of real buildings (although adjusted to SL and all of them so old they can't possibly be protected) and some loosely based on real buildings (using the same style and sometimes even similair composition) and I'm not completely sure where the line between allowed an not allowed is, which slightly worries me. I also read the possibility to protect the actual architectural work in the US is rather young (1990). Copyright Claims in Architectural Works Plans or drawings, models etc are protected a whole lot longer. To make a long story short and to avoid a whole list of questions right away, does anyone know where to find more on the subject? That is what (architecture) is allowed to model in 3D and publish in SL. Greatly appreciated would be actual lawsuits, which I find easier to comprehend than pieces of a law book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drongle McMahon Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 "...3D modelling, which I personally wouldn't qualify as pictorial." An interesting point. Argument 1: In its unrendered digital form, a 3D model is clearly not a copy of a RL object. It is simply a recipe for producing pictorial representations via rendering. The question of whether, through these renderings, it represent a copy (derivative or not) can only be determined after rendering. So the only way the question of copying can be settled is in the comparison of the pictorial representations. Since the 3d model is no more than a collection of possible pictorial representations, the pictorial representation rules apply. Argument 2: The 3D model is a blueprint for the generation of pictorial representations via rendering. In that sense, its status is the same as the architechtural blueprints of the building. The 3D model produces these pictures directly, while the blueprints do so indirectly through the realisation of the real building. In both cases, the model and the blueprint can produce an infinite number of different pictorial representations. Therefore the 3D model is equivalent to the blueprint, and is entitled to the same level of protection. Hmm. Surely this must have been settled in a court somewhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwakkelde Kwak Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Drongle McMahon wrote: Since the 3d model is no more than a collection of possible pictorial representations, the pictorial representation rules apply. That first arguement has some validity to it for sure, but following your logic, a 3D model can also be used to produce a non pictorial representation. Think 3D printers or CNC machines. And both "graphic" and "sculptural" are not mentioned in the article. Therefore the 3D model is equivalent to the blueprint, and is entitled to the same level of protection. That I am willing to take as accurate, but we're not talking about the level of protection, we're talking about whether it is allowed to make them or even distribute them, based on pictures taken of the building or based on the actual building. The protection for blueprints the way I read it, is for the actual blueprints made by the architect. You are under no circumstances allowed to use those without the architect's permissions. (Or the copyright holder in general and ofcourse within the copyright period). That doesn't mean you're not allowed to make your own. Hmm. Surely this must have been settled in a court somewhere? One would think so, but I can't find any.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innula Zenovka Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Masami Kuramoto wrote: Chosen Few wrote: Once again, if you can find a single point of law that prohibits the sculpting or digital modeling of an already built buidling, go ahead and post it, and I'll happily recant what I've said on the subject. Frankly, I am getting tired of wading through yet another one of your walls of text where you repeat the same nonsense over and over again. The law you are asking me to post here has already been posted multiple times. It explicitly permits pictorial representations of copyrighted architectural works. It does not permit graphic or sculptural representations. Your conclusion that "pictorial" actually means "pictorial, graphic and sculptural" is backed up by nothing. The law means what it says, and if it meant all three, it would mention all three, just like it does at other places. I don't know how it works in the USA, but certainly here in the UK the fact that the law specifies "pictorial, graphic and sculptural" at one point, thus differentiating between them, and only mentions "pictorial" at another, wouldn't automatically lead a court to conclude Parliament must have intended to exclude "graphic and sculptural" works when only "pictorial" ones were mentioned. One side would certainly invite the court to conclude that's exactly what it did intend, and the other would invite it to consider the possibility that parliament intended to, in this context, for the one term to embrace the other two and that it was an example of poor parliamentary draftsmanship. The issue would only be resolved one way or another in a higher court, which would need to consider which reading made most sense in the light of other sections of the Act, other relevant legislation and existing case law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwakkelde Kwak Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 The article itself doesn't exclude "graphic" and "sculptural" just by not mentioning them, ofcourse. But I don't think there's a whole lot to speculate about what the article says and why. To me it's quite obvious it means you're allowed to make photographs of any publicly visible part of a building. That's litterally mentioned. So we can photograph a building and use the photo for a texture. Whether it's allowed to make a model of a building (virtual or physical) is what I'm really interested in. The article doesn't help us here at all unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masami Kuramoto Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 §102(a)(8) declares a rule, and §120(a) declares an exception to it. If you interpret "pictorial" as "pictorial, graphic and sculptural", then §120(a) will essentially override §102(a)(8) because it will encompass all possible representations of the copyrighted work as defined in §101: “Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works” include two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans. This is clearly much more than mentioned in §120(a) explicitly: "pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work". So I'd say it's unlikely that the law actually means graphic and sculptural. What a court would say I don't know. I guess the easiest way to find out is to follow the suggestion given at the beginning of this thread and report all mesh reproductions of post-1990 architecture that we find on the marketplace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwakkelde Kwak Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Masami Kuramoto wrote: If you interpret "pictorial" as "pictorial, graphic and sculptural", then §120(a) will essentially override §102(a)(8) because it will encompass all possible representations of the copyrighted work as defined in §101: That's not completely accurate, since in 102 the term "architectural work" is used and in 120 "architectural work that has been constructed" and "if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place". I'm in agreement with you though by what is ment by "pictorial", meaning it doesn't include "graphic" or "sculptural". This however does in no way mean those two are by definition not allowed. It simply means there's nothing said about those two in this specific article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chosen Few Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Baloo Uriza wrote: Good God, Chosen, show some respect. There's nothing disrespectful about telling someone who's got a lot to learn that he does indeed have a lot to learn, nor is there anything disrepsectful about acknowledging the fact that when somoene has posted links to articles that say the opposite of what he claims they say, he's either not reading or not reading very carefully. Considering the person in question advocated thievery right in his very first post, defended that stance for days, and then tried to pretend he never said it, I'd say I've been showing him a heck of lot more respect than some might argue he rightfully deserves. Baloo Uriza wrote: He's trying to have an intelligent dialogue with you on the subject, Whe one person openly states refusal to read what the other person has written, that amounts to trying to have an intelligent dialog? That's not dialog at all, let alone intelligent dialog. Baloo Uriza wrote: and you're just trying to fillibuster. Wow, you really think that's what I've been doing? All the facts I've presented, all my attempts at clearing up common misconceptions about copyright, equal fillabustering? Is your definition of the word perhaps different from the established meaning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chosen Few Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Masami Kuramoto wrote: No, I'm declaring victory because I debunked all your claims. No, you THINK you've "debunked" one particular thing, out of dozens of other things that you've been absolutely and undeniably wrong about, and now you're trying to pretend that that one item was the whole of the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chosen Few Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: I've done a bit of kintergarden research (most research is if you ask me, or at least the better part of it...) So I found the following (17 USC § 120) : Section 102 of the Copyright Act, deals with the scope of exclusive rights in architectural works. Subsection (a) states “ Pictorial Representations Permitted- The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.” Thanks for posting the correct part of the satute, Kwak. During my argument with Masami, I was sincerely hoping he would respond to my prompting to do his own research to find it himself, which was why I did not step up to post it then. He chose not to bite, which was disappointing. As of the last few posts in the thread, it does appear that better research is now being done by all, which is good. Thanks for getting the ball rolling on that. Clearly my strategy in that regard was less than effective. Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: The terms "graphic" and "sculptural" are not mentioned. The way I read the article, is it is allowed to make pictures (or drawings, paintings, sketches etc.) of a building as long as it is visible from a public place, nothing more, nothing less. You're right of course that 3D models are not mentioned specifically. Within the legal community, however, it is widely agreed that this does not in fact mean that creating a digital artwork of a publicly viewable building goes in any way against the spirit of the law. (I happen to have a family full of lawyers and judges, so perhaps you can imagine what kinds of discussions happen over Thanksgiving dinner and such.) The idea was to protect architects from being ripped off by other architects, while still allowing the general public to create artworks based upon the world around them. As I understand it, the particular wording was suggested by a law professor, and was simply inserted by Congress upon receipt (which is hardly uncommon practice, by the way). Unfortunately, while law professors know more about law than just about anyone else, they're not always experts on the subjects that laws govern (which of course is why we have case law, in addition to just statutory law). Thus we often end up with not all bases covered. My best guess is that addressing the specific subject of 3D models simply did not occur to the good professor. More on this in a minute. Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: Obviously the copyrights on architectural work are focussed on RL work and RL infringement (building an actual building), so I'm having a really hard time finding anything about 3D modelling, which I personally wouldn't qualify as pictorial. I've made plenty of buildings in SL, most 100% original, some copies of real buildings (although adjusted to SL and all of them so old they can't possibly be protected) and some loosely based on real buildings (using the same style and sometimes even similair composition) and I'm not completely sure where the line between allowed an not allowed is, which slightly worries me. I can appreciate that the unfortunate fixation this thread now has on this one little subtopic may well have some good coscientious people such as yourself a little spooked. But really, I wouldn't worry about it. As you said, the purpose of the law is to protect architects from other architects, to make sure they can't steal each other's designs for RL buildings. The intent was never to single out digital artists as somehow different from natural media artists, so as to bar one while allowing the other. That's just not what it's about. Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: I also read the possibility to protect the actual architectural work in the US is rather young (1990). Correct. Young as it is, though, it's important to realize that it is significantly older than 3D modeling as the medium we know it to be today. The regular ability for members of the general public to create 3D models did not come about until the late 90's/early 2000's, and did not become widespread by any degree until the mid 2000's. Before that, it was quite exclusive, requiring specialized hardware and software that very few on this planet had access to. Even video game companies weren't doing 3D work in earnest until the mid to late 90's, and most weren't doing much of note with it until well into the early 2000's. Heck, Doom was still three years away in 1990. Discrete graphics cards in home computers were still almost a decade away. With that in mind, is it any wonder that it didn't occur to the drafters of that particular add-on to copyright law to even think about 3d models as a possibility? Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: To make a long story short and to avoid a whole list of questions right away, does anyone know where to find more on the subject? That is what (architecture) is allowed to model in 3D and publish in SL. Greatly appreciated would be actual lawsuits, which I find easier to comprehend than pieces of a law book. To my knowledge, there is as yet no existing case law to test this. But every lawyer and every judge I've ever discussed the subject with, or whose written opinion I've read, has agreed that it's next to impossible to imagine that any court would be so literal as to see a difference between a 2-dimensional drawing and a 3D model rendered on a 2-dimensional screen. For all intents and purposes, they're the same thing. It's more than understandable if you don't want to simply take my word for that. By all means, keep doing your own research. Ask lawyers. Ask judges. If you happen to find a legal opinion that differs from what I've written, it'll make for very interesting discussion, and I'd love to hear about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwakkelde Kwak Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Chosen Few wrote: It's more than understandable if you don't want to simply take my word for that. By all means, keep doing your own research. Ask lawyers. Ask judges. If you happen to find a legal opinion that differs from what I've written, it'll make for very interesting discussion, and I'd love to hear about it. I am cautious enough not to take your word as absolute truth. On the other hand, you having access to plenty of lawyers and having years of experience in the 3d industry, makes me believe you are no worse a source than any lawyer I would hire. Call me naive on that one, you could be a 15 year old loudmouth afterall:) Any legal advice is just advice, also if I were to hire a lawyer. The only way to find out is to win or lose a case that covers the entire subject...and the fact that there's no such case to be found seems to support your point of view, although ofcourse not proving it. If I find anything that either proves, supports, undermines or differs in any way from what you say, I'll post it ofcourse. Somewhere deep in the caves of my memory I remember a fairly recent Frank Lloyd Wright case. But I can't find it. I could be wrong completely and I have no recollection of the outcome to begin with. Maybe it rings a bell though.. maybe my brain made it up... that's always possible... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Galli Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Here ya go http://primperfectblog.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/frank-lloyd-wright-virtual-museum-to-close-sunday/ http://www.hypergridbusiness.com/2010/12/despite-cease-desist-order-frank-lloyd-wright%E2%80%99s-spirit-of-innovation-lives-on/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwakkelde Kwak Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Had a quick read, not a thourough one. That was not what I had in mind, but it's an interesting one. It also doen't answer any questions unfortunately. First of all, there hasn't been a lawsuit, so we don't know how a court would rule on the copyrights on the buildings. Buildings built before 1990 can't be registered for copyrights in the US, so effectively there can't even be a lawsuit. Wright's name and the names of his works are probably all trademarked. I think that is the most important aspect in the virtual museum being taken down. You absolutely need permission to use those. If the museum was backed by the foundation, I can imagine they got to use blueprints and other materials with copyrights to build the models. So withdrawing permission for that, means the models can't be used, one would think so at least. Interesting find though, those pages..and a shame the museum is no more. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masami Kuramoto Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 It's a shame that Chosen Few and her family of lawyers were not around to filibuster the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation into submission. I was sad to see the museum go. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwakkelde Kwak Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Nothing, absolutely nothing in the termination of the museum in any way proves Chosen wrong Masami. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masami Kuramoto Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: Nothing, absolutely nothing in the termination of the museum in any way proves Chosen wrong Masami. "It's just a flesh wound!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwakkelde Kwak Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Masami Kuramoto wrote: "It's just a flesh wound!" Not even a superficial scratch if you ask me, but could we please stay on topic and ignore any ego or personal issues? I'd really like to find out more and I'm sure so do others. Having to read through posts like this isn't helping. That includes terms as "throwing in the towel", "claiming victory", "flesh wounds" or other phrases suggesting we're in competition or even at war. I've drawn my conclusions for now from reading both your posts and so have others, let's leave it at that please. Any additional info is always very welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masami Kuramoto Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 The flesh wound quote is from a Monty Python movie. If you have seen it, you know what kind of behavioral pattern it refers to. You have to understand that my desire to keep things civil and polite was somewhat reduced after you guys accused me of lying, advocating theft, or being dyslexic. After consuming ten pages of Chosen's patronizing prose, I feel entitled to some remedy. What goes around comes around. If you disagree that Chosen's legal theories have been utterly debunked, feel free to point out how the FLW museum does not conflict with pretty much everything she said. Was the museum allowed to continue using FLW's works after the license was revoked? How does the Foundation's C&D letter align with Chosen's claim that architecture is "utilitarian and not copyrightable"? If the C&D letter was based on trademark rather than copyright law, what difference does it make to the result that the museum is shut down and the exhibits are gone? Should we, in light of these events, report any reproduction of real-world buildings that we find on the grid, on the marketplace, on Turbosquid, Renderosity and the Google 3D warehouse? Are we advocates of theft if we don't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innula Zenovka Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 What the letter says, in part, is We were later notified by their legal counsel that our license agreement, which would have expired at the end of 2010, had been terminated. The termination of the licensing agreement removes all rights we may have had to use the name of Wright, trademarked materials, protected designs such as buildings, furnishings and so forth-in essence, everything that made the Frank Lloyd Wright Virtual Museum what it was and is. I don't think anyone's arguing about the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation's right to licence its name or trademarked materials, so that leaves "protected designs such as buildings, furnishings and so forth". On consulting the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation's website, I see that Frank Lloyd Wright first lent his name and endorsed three licensed product lines in 1955. The now formalized Licensing Program established by the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation offers exact product reproductions or adaptations of Frank Lloyd Wright’s designs. Today the program comprises over thirty companies officially authorized to use the copyrighted designs to produce more than 1500 licensed items that represent the creative genius of Frank Lloyd Wright. These products include reproduction furniture, lighting, art glass windows, decorative accessories, and other adapted items based on the designs of Frank Lloyd Wright. Licensed products at retail are available through the Taliesin West Bookstore and e-commerce site: www.franklloydwright.com. Other organizations managing houses and buildings designed by Frank Lloyd Wright as well as museums, catalogs, and retail stores, also sell Frank Lloyd Wright Collection products. . But I can't see anything there, or in the selection of Frank Lloyd Wright Collection products on their bookstore and e-commerce site, that suggest they sell or licence 3-D models of the exteriors of his buildings. Since we don't know what the original licencing agreement was, or, I think, what the letter send to the Virtual Museum actually said, all, to my mind, we can be sure about is that the Frank Lloyd Wright Collection told them they couldn't use his name, trademarked products or certain other items based on his copyrighted designs, that these items almost certainly included some "reproduction furniture, lighting, art glass windows, decorative accessorites, and other adapted items" that we know are subject to the Collection's licences, and that the Virtual Museum thought there was no point in carrying on with what they'd be left. It may well have included some or all of buildings' exteriors, too. I just don't know, any more than do I know that, had the Virtual Museum wanted to challenge some aspects of the prohibition in court, they wouldn't have been successful. I don't know anything about copyright and IP law in the US, but I do know that I wouldn't want to infer too much about it from the Virtual Museum's letter. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now