3 ms·
You are incorrect or perhaps slightly misleading about making a visually indistinguishable reproduction of something. Say if we applied to this to a piece of
by whiddershins 8y ago
You are incorrect or perhaps slightly misleading about making a visually indistinguishable reproduction of something.
Say if we applied to this to a piece of artwork such as a painting or sculpture.
That’s why it is called “copyright.” It is the right to make a copy, and if you make something that is visually indistinguishable, that is by definition a copy, irrespective of the process used.
- logfromblammo 8y agoCopyright law is a little hazy for me there. There is apparently a distinction between "slavish reproductions", as one might obtain by photographically scanning the original, reconstructions, as one might get by painting a forgery with the visible part of the original as reference, and reimplementations, as one might get by returning to the same scene the original artist painted, and doing the same landscape with similar style. Depending on the camera view, the reproduction object might only be indistinguishable from the original when restricted to certain viewing angles. Going from 2D to 3D clearly involves some creative effort. I don't think you can seriously say that a printed object can be a copy of a movie frame. If you're that far into it, you probably need to consult a lawyer. I maintain that making a 3D-print of an object file inspired by a prop in a movie is not protected by copyright, should never be protected by copyright, and that anyone suggesting otherwise ought to be kept far away from any business involving intellectual property protection.