Cease and Desist, Copyrights - What do you want to know? (updated!)

The way I see it is that it's the responsibility of a designer to make sure that there copyright is respected (both his own and others').

What I see here is similar to what I saw with miniatures sculptors. Professionals are usually aware of how copyright works but this is not always the case for starters and hobbyists. And many fall for misunderstandings (google copyright + myths) and mix it up with trademark and patent laws. That's why I think it would be good if a basic explanation on copyrights with examples would exist on this site. An example is what you see on the GW site (a very IP protective company with an active legal department):

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?aId=39 00002 - check section 4.

Interesting is their use of the word intellectual property. This avoids having to set whether it's trademark or copyright they are talking about. Anyway, what you find in the article is a list of examples. A few things from the list:

- they have heavily restricted the use of the name of their game, including the use for clubs and fanzines. Fonts are also protected.
- conversion of miniatures is allowed though the statement "Please do not combine our intellectual properties with IP owned by any third parties." is a bit of a puzzler.
- pictures of their figures: only allowed with reference to the IP.
- educational use: not officially allowed. Only through fair use which again only applies to copyright.
- "reproduction for personal use is NOT an automatic exclusion in respect of copyright protection in many territories worldwide"
- Cardboard reproductions: not allowed.
- Painting services: only if it's generic and not only directed to GW figures.
- Model conversion kits: not allowed by GW.

By the way, that page is by GW, so it's the way they see it. Lawsuits by them have been fought as C&D's have been pulled back. Some before going to court.

Some links to an interesting case on model conversions:
http://www.mi40k.com/?p=1908
http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?t=13751
http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?t=13130

Bye,
Ming-Hua

Hey Ming-Hua

I will look into seeing whether we can show some examples but it is broad and complex across different territories.

Thanks for your suggestion.

Its also worth looking into whether a 3D printed object is classified as artistic works (like a sculpture) which a copy can be made for private use under fair use, or as a design and covered by design rights.

UK Copyright - Fair Use
UK Design Rights
USA Design Patent FAQ

I haven't a clue how the (or even what) European Community Laws apply to EU member states though.

Of course 3D objects are classified as 'works' for the purposes of copyright. there essencial word is copy and it doesn't matter what materials or processes are use to make the copy. A Mickey Mouse made of marzipan would still infringe Disney's copyright.

However ideas cannot be copyrighted So in this case, the idea that an object can be designed by the accretion of cubic shapes is not particularly original -- it is for instance they way rock salt crystals form. There must be millions of permutations of cubes that could be made to produce something that looks vaguely like that used in the film, perhaps someone should produce some drawing of similar structures and ask the lawyers concerned which they consider infringe their copyright. I'm sure a script could easily be written that could produce, say 10000 variations within a reasonable time.

The real problem here, though, is that the OP has admitted that he based his model on a prop from this film. So he really should expect the owners of the film rights to act in any other way than they have.

Not necessarily, for example my forum image is a photo one of my designs, purposely designed for the stainless steel materials only. The photo has copyright protection, the design (in the UK) has Unregistered Design Rights protection. i.e. it is the look and material the 3D model is made from that classifies it as a design and I've not taken the steps to register it.

If I made a 2D representaion of Mickey Mouse out of marzipan to decorate my son's birthday cake, I might be breaching USA copyright law, but what about the UK? Would it come under fair use for private study?

How about if I made a 3D representation of Mickey out of marzipan, would that infringe Disney's Design Patent if the item was for personal consumption?

But as Duann said a few posts back
Also, if you are in the USA, ideas (i.e. methods) can be patented (even if they're pie-in-the-sky OU nonsense, daft as it seems).

I would think the Marvel items would be considered "Fan Art" which used to be seen as flattery, now it's seen as infringement. One option I haven't seen mentioned (I haven't read everything) is to call it a satire piece. That's how you get Family Guy Star Wars episodes and Mike Tyson tattoo's and all that fun stuff.

- Not necessarily, .... i.e. it is the look and material the 3D model is made from that classifies it as a design and I've not taken the steps to register it.

You don't need to register it. Though in some cases it makes it easier to prove it's your design. You own the copyright the moment that is has been "fixed in any tangible medium of expression". In this case the photo. The subject on the pictures, if it was designed by you is copyrighted and so is the picture itself which you made of it.

- I might be breaching USA copyright law, but what about the UK? Would it come under fair use for private study?

Both countries have signed the Berne convention treaty. I don't know in detail how that works internationally but I believe it means they have to respect the copyright as it is in the country of origin. Also, if you can convince the judge/jury that what you are doing is for private study it can be fair use (though UK may be using fair dealing, not sure).

- How about if I made a 3D representation of Mickey out of marzipan, would that infringe Disney's Design Patent if the item was for personal consumption?

I think patent would be the only one you would not be infringing upon. Patent is more along the lines of inventions. As you say "ideas". But in theory, you would be breaching the copyright law. Personal use is not an argument for fair use. It would also be a breach of trademark since Disney trademarked Mickey Mouse.

@youuknowwho4eva: you are right. The Marvel items can be seen as fan art but since this is derivative art creating it still falls under the copyright of Marvel. And it's up to them whether they will go after it. Have a look on the GW page I linked before. They go pretty far to keep people from making GW fan art.

- Satire, good question. I had a quick look and found this article. There seems to be some discussion about this and the difference between satire and parody. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100625/1311489962.shtml
Can't say much about this without studying this a bit more. Can somebody tell us more?

Bye,
Ming-Hua

Yes the UK uses fair dealing, including private use for study. USA has Design Patents for designs in the same respect that the UK has Design Rights. USA Utility Patents are for inventions, in a similar respect to the UK patent for a working prototype of an invention.

All linked to in one of my earlier posts, to save confusion over meanings.

Really interesting debate...if not a bit head hammering :/
Makes me wonder whats going to happen to copyright laws when 3d printers and scanners/replicators become household items? This could bring down entire economic structures!

In the meantime, I would really like to print a hard-to-find boot badge for my 69 Datsun. Given the company doesn't exist anymore, and the car hasn't been sold for 40 years...can I do this? Would SW?

BTW I have noticed a fair bit of stuff for sale on here that could be classed as breach of copyright...for instance what laws would surround the making and marketing of products specifically for the iPad/Phone/Pod?

I don't think that printers becoming household items would change the basic situation for copyrights. It will just increase the number of occurrences and make it less controllable. But it's not different than making a drawing of a known superhero. Unless you do it to sell the items of course.

One thing to consider though is the 3D file. Not everybody can 3D model, so for home printing to become popular there should be libraries online with 3D models (like you see for 3D graphical programs right now). The copyright owner can go after the site that published it and the person who put the file there (similar to what you see in this thread). One difference with the music industry is that these sites will likely be mostly original items (of which the copyright is owned by the uploader). So it will be harder for them to go after a whole site like music and IP companies are doing right now.

As to the Datsun boot badge, I expect it will be Nissan who owns the copyright. Possibly the trademark too if it was maintained. So, strictly speaking you would have to ask them for permission.

By the way, your question makes me think of this case:
http://www.jenkins.eu/mym-spring-2010/german-courts-toy-with -law-in-opel-model-decision.asp
http://jiplp.blogspot.com/2010/03/bundesgerichtshof-decides- in-opelautec.html

Interesting is to see the difference in tone between the two reports. The first one is surprised by the outcome while the second is not. This also shows one of the difficulties of copyrights and trademarks. Outcomes can depend on local culture and specific parties involved.

If it comes to model kits, Lockheed and Boeing lawyers have also gone after model kit producers to get royalties on models of their planes. I've forgotten what the final conclusion was.

As to aftermarket product like for the i-pod, I've been wondering about that as well. I'm not sure where those stand if it comes to copyright. GW forbids it, but I'm not sure of the actual rules about this. Anyone?

@stop4stuff: thanks for the links. I missed that post. Hehe, one thing I like about what's in there:

Accessibility for someone with a visual impairment

It is considered fair dealing to make an accessible copy of a work for someone with an visual impairment if a suitable accessible version is not already available.

Nice

Knowing the alacrity which Apple attacks any perceived threat to their IP, I think there would already have been a flurry of law suits if Apple were at all able to sue people in the after sales market.

Here's a link to the full UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Somewhen, quite a while ago, I remembered reading about fair use for the re-creation of car parts... something along the lines of they can be manufactured & sold after so many years out of production... I can't remember how I got to this information and can't find it now... but I did come across an interesting pdf comparing the USA & UK Design Law relating to the design of cars

re i-Pod add-ons - I'd be sure that if the product title doesn't imply that the item is a 'official' product, then it is OK.
e.g. Apple i-Pod cover = wrong, but Cover for Apple i-Pod = OK (which it is see link below)

I expect Apple have a useage policy See Section 2. Guidelines for Using Apple Trademarks and Copyrights

The relevant case in British law is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Leyland_Motor_Corp._v._ Armstrong_Patents_Co.

It was in part in response to this case that the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 was introduced.

One important provision of the design rights that it introduced was that it excluded parts of the design that were necessary for it's function or to connect to other parts.

Most other countries have some sort of "repair clause" that does something similar and the EU is proposing to harmonise these under the EU Community Design Regulation (CDR).

Problem is if you spend the time to try and understand all this legislation you won't have any time left to design anything ! Add that to the fact that Shapeways is a global market and every country has it's own rules. Do we take down everything that might be illegal somewhere in the world?

Interesting snippet in this case - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14287864

"That court has now also ruled that the 3D works should not be considered sculptures, which means their copyright protection is 15 years from the date they were marketed"

Not sure if this is all 3D works or just the ones referenced in the case.

Tom

Oooh, nice find!

.

Maybe is copyright lasted only 15 or 20 years some people would have to come up with more than one idea in a lifetime..............

This just in.
UK laws are more flexible on movie props.

here

Personally, I tend to side with Lucas on this though.
However, generally, I'm for Sharing (even more than fair-share) and not too many laws in the way of creativity and expression (even if it's expression of being a fan or just expressing replica skills)


Here's an interesting twist: say I'm a replica artist - that is my skill is not 'inventing creativity' but creatively applying my skills to reverse engineer or replicate objects. Should I not be able to express my skills, and sell the right to people to own my objects and appreciate my skills up close? Also, my skills for the said process (3d printing).



http://www.pddnet.com/news-lucas-loses-stormtrooper-helmet-b attle-072711/?et_cid=1864144&et_rid=45582329&linkid= http%3a%2f%2fwww.pddnet.com%2fnews-lucas-loses-stormtrooper- helmet-battle-072711%2f

Copyright lasts the lifetime of the owner (rightly so) and some more so that the artist (and heirs) can benefit from the artist's imaginative endeavours... I mean, who would feel right ripping off one of Freddy Mercury's songs before he died, let alone after!

@Teebee that BBC News article, I think, shows the divide between understanding of copyright, design rights and patent. To me it looks like Mr. Ainsworth knew exactly what he was doing... UK act passed in 1988, giving him a 15 year wait 'til he could produce the replicas, which (as I understand) he started doing in 2003, and now he has rightfullly (under UK law) succeeded in his claims of the suit as a design (15 year original owner rights)... on top of comply with UK law to-the-letter, it also looks like he managed to find a loop-hole in US law by having no interests in the USA (which lead the case to be heard in the UK)... that geezer!

I suppose Lucas will file the design under US design patents now and sue him retropectively in a year or so

Yep, the Lucas thing was mentioned a few posts back.

Your twist can be done... if you are employed a an educator and reproducing stuff for educational purposes for students to learn from... but not as a creator of fakes-for-sale, although you might get away with using the fakes for private study (think market research for your upcoming business as a modeller)... for UK law, check out the links previously in this thread.

"Not sure if this is all 3D works or just the ones referenced in the case."

From the way it's written in the article I would say only these specific 3 dimensional objects. Not 3D works in general (whether digital or touchable). Problem would otherwise be the question what a 3D works is and a clear distinction between when it's sculpture or not.