7 ms·

Can I just point out the insanity of 3D models being subject to trademark and copyright? You can take/paint/draw a picture of a mailbox and post it but if you

Can I just point out the insanity of 3D models being subject to trademark and copyright? You can take/paint/draw a picture of a mailbox and post it but if you make a 3D model all of the sudden the legal system loses it's goddamn mind. It's been a huge issue in the video game space where companies are suing for licencing whenever someone includes something in a game, including FOSS game efforts (Honda Jet removed from Flight Gear). Why can't we just leave art alone?

zentiggr 7y ago
Convince companies they'll make more money by encouraging unexpected product placement, instead of defending their current income streams by any draconian measure they can devise... /s
cabaalis 7y ago
IANAL, but you do have to protect your trademarks from being genericized, or they can be invalidated.
- inetknght 7y ago
  Let me just google that
itcrowd 7y ago
> Can I just point out the insanity of 3D models being subject to trademark and copyright? Not sure if I agree. If a song is included in a game without license, it wouldn't fly either. Designs can be copyrighted and may not be copied by others without permission. If (game) designers want to use a mailbox in a game, why not make one themselves? Why use others' work without permission?
- StuffedParrot 7y ago
  I thought the poster was implying that the USPS was enforcing ownership even though they didn’t create or provide the content, so making your own mailbox wouldn’t help at all.
  - itcrowd 7y ago
    Yes. If I make an exact (3D model) replica of a mailbox, or analogously, a re-recording of a song that sounds exactly the same, the original designer of the mailbox or song can exert authorship rights through copyright action. The fact that you did the effort of making the mailbox in a drawing program or re-recording the song doesn't mean its suddenly free of copyright.
- AWildC182 7y ago
  This is not what I'm saying. Stealing models byte for byte is obviously a copyright issue, as is stealing music The issue is that companies can trademark the "form" of their products and therefore demand licencing fees so no, they couldn't just make their own mailbox because USPS would attempt to sue them for violating their trademark on the shape of the mailbox. Basically, it's become a shitty way of getting a forever-patent as well as rent seeking within totally unrelated industries. Some common examples: Model a tractor and make it green -> John Deere sues you Model a car with no badges that looks vaguely like a Porsche -> Porsche sues you Model a military jet designed entirely with taxpayer money -> Lockheed Martin/Boeing/Textron/Mikoyan/Sukhoi/etc sue you Model a tube with some fins and add literally any military AGM/MIM/AIM/etc name -> Raytheon sues you Model a AR style rifle and make the filename 'm4' -> Colt sues you Mind you none of the above affect the respective industries of the listed companies.
  - itcrowd 7y ago
    > This is not what I'm saying. Sorry if I misunderstood. I'm not entirely sure what you didn't mean but here's my best-effort attempt. I think my confusion came from the example you cited in your previous post, about the Honda Jet that was removed from a game. The game, as I understand from [1], essentially includes a model of the Honda Jet which is an accurate 3D model of the real-world Honda Jet. It also bears the same name. None of your "common examples" go this far, they do 'resemble' the product that is allegedly sued over, but they are not 1:1 3D (computer model) renditions of the real-world products and are not named the same. > Stealing models byte for byte is obviously a copyright issue, as is stealing music Glad we agree. > The issue is that companies can trademark the "form" of their products and therefore demand licencing fees This is where we disagree. As a (hypothetical) "creator", I would like to exert control over what I produce, in line with the law, except when I decide to licence it in some liberal fashion (GPL/MIT/CC whatever). How is replicating a 3D model of a plane, along with the name, not an infringement of the rights of the creator? If you want to respond, please keep in mind that we are talking about current copyright and trademark law, not some utopia in which new laws can be enacted willy-nilly. > they couldn't just make their own mailbox because USPS would attempt to sue them Really? There is not a single mailbox design that doesn't violate USPS' copyright?! I will concede that copyright terms are long, but not indefinite (although for practical purposes they may appear indefinite). Finally, I would like to discuss this claim: > Model a military jet designed entirely with taxpayer money On the surface it seems ridiculous. But why would the government (1) outsource the contract to the listed companies and then (2) agree to terms which state that the copyright/trademark belongs to the outsourcing companies? If you think about both (1) and (2) it's either a major flaw in how government contracts work (could be...) or the companies want the intellectual property and have "priced it in" into the dollar value of the contracts. Essentially, if the IP was government property, the military jet would cost more taxpayer dollars. What do you think? Honest question. [1] https://torrentfreak.com/honda-takes-copyright-infringing-jet-flightgear-140603/ https://torrentfreak.com/honda-takes-copyright-infringing-je...
dwild 7y ago
> if you make a 3D model all of the sudden the legal system loses it's goddamn mind. This isn't a proof that you can't do it, a DMCA takedown is a way to avoid going to court to prove that you can't do it. I guess you wouldn't get DMCA takedown over a drawing because it's probably clear that they would lose in court, while a 3D models hasn't been proved in court yet, thus you are less likely to want to push it to court. It's a clear abuse of power. They don't do it because they are right, they do it because they can.

zentiggr 7y ago

Convince companies they'll make more money by encouraging unexpected product placement, instead of defending their current income streams by any draconian measure they can devise... /s

cabaalis 7y ago

IANAL, but you do have to protect your trademarks from being genericized, or they can be invalidated.

inetknght 7y ago
Let me just google that

itcrowd 7y ago

> Can I just point out the insanity of 3D models being subject to trademark and copyright? Not sure if I agree. If a song is included in a game without license, it wouldn't fly either. Designs can be copyrighted and may not be copied by others without permission. If (game) designers want to use a mailbox in a game, why not make one themselves? Why use others' work without permission?

StuffedParrot 7y ago
I thought the poster was implying that the USPS was enforcing ownership even though they didn’t create or provide the content, so making your own mailbox wouldn’t help at all.
- itcrowd 7y ago
  Yes. If I make an exact (3D model) replica of a mailbox, or analogously, a re-recording of a song that sounds exactly the same, the original designer of the mailbox or song can exert authorship rights through copyright action. The fact that you did the effort of making the mailbox in a drawing program or re-recording the song doesn't mean its suddenly free of copyright.
AWildC182 7y ago
This is not what I'm saying. Stealing models byte for byte is obviously a copyright issue, as is stealing music The issue is that companies can trademark the "form" of their products and therefore demand licencing fees so no, they couldn't just make their own mailbox because USPS would attempt to sue them for violating their trademark on the shape of the mailbox. Basically, it's become a shitty way of getting a forever-patent as well as rent seeking within totally unrelated industries. Some common examples: Model a tractor and make it green -> John Deere sues you Model a car with no badges that looks vaguely like a Porsche -> Porsche sues you Model a military jet designed entirely with taxpayer money -> Lockheed Martin/Boeing/Textron/Mikoyan/Sukhoi/etc sue you Model a tube with some fins and add literally any military AGM/MIM/AIM/etc name -> Raytheon sues you Model a AR style rifle and make the filename 'm4' -> Colt sues you Mind you none of the above affect the respective industries of the listed companies.
- itcrowd 7y ago
  > This is not what I'm saying. Sorry if I misunderstood. I'm not entirely sure what you didn't mean but here's my best-effort attempt. I think my confusion came from the example you cited in your previous post, about the Honda Jet that was removed from a game. The game, as I understand from [1], essentially includes a model of the Honda Jet which is an accurate 3D model of the real-world Honda Jet. It also bears the same name. None of your "common examples" go this far, they do 'resemble' the product that is allegedly sued over, but they are not 1:1 3D (computer model) renditions of the real-world products and are not named the same. > Stealing models byte for byte is obviously a copyright issue, as is stealing music Glad we agree. > The issue is that companies can trademark the "form" of their products and therefore demand licencing fees This is where we disagree. As a (hypothetical) "creator", I would like to exert control over what I produce, in line with the law, except when I decide to licence it in some liberal fashion (GPL/MIT/CC whatever). How is replicating a 3D model of a plane, along with the name, not an infringement of the rights of the creator? If you want to respond, please keep in mind that we are talking about current copyright and trademark law, not some utopia in which new laws can be enacted willy-nilly. > they couldn't just make their own mailbox because USPS would attempt to sue them Really? There is not a single mailbox design that doesn't violate USPS' copyright?! I will concede that copyright terms are long, but not indefinite (although for practical purposes they may appear indefinite). Finally, I would like to discuss this claim: > Model a military jet designed entirely with taxpayer money On the surface it seems ridiculous. But why would the government (1) outsource the contract to the listed companies and then (2) agree to terms which state that the copyright/trademark belongs to the outsourcing companies? If you think about both (1) and (2) it's either a major flaw in how government contracts work (could be...) or the companies want the intellectual property and have "priced it in" into the dollar value of the contracts. Essentially, if the IP was government property, the military jet would cost more taxpayer dollars. What do you think? Honest question. [1] https://torrentfreak.com/honda-takes-copyright-infringing-jet-flightgear-140603/ https://torrentfreak.com/honda-takes-copyright-infringing-je...

dwild 7y ago

> if you make a 3D model all of the sudden the legal system loses it's goddamn mind. This isn't a proof that you can't do it, a DMCA takedown is a way to avoid going to court to prove that you can't do it. I guess you wouldn't get DMCA takedown over a drawing because it's probably clear that they would lose in court, while a 3D models hasn't been proved in court yet, thus you are less likely to want to push it to court. It's a clear abuse of power. They don't do it because they are right, they do it because they can.