On 5/21/06, Matt Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/21/06, Brianna Laugher
<brianna.laugher(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I freely admit that my knowledge of copyright is
lacking. It can apply
to 3D objects like toys, models? machinery like i-pods? cars, why not?
Under US law, at least, copyright law is not generally read as having
any bearing on photos of such objects.
Because photos of such objects are fair use. If you're trying to say
that the design of a car or an i-pod is not copyrightable, then I
think you're incorrect.
Trademark law does, however,
for some commercial uses, in terms of things like logos. However,
Commons has in general decided that we are not going to concern
ourselves with trademark issues when they impact only certain types of
commercial use. They do not prohibit the uses of such images even in
a commercial encyclopedia.
Maybe it's time for commons to decide not to concern itself with
copyright issues when they only impact certain types of commercial
use, and do not prohibit the uses of such images even in a commercial
encyclopedia.
If so, it's important that such an issue be very carefully addressed.
You don't want commons to wind up like En.wikipedia.
Trademarked characters (e.g. Star Wars) are generally
regarded as
being more protected than other 3D objects (because they are derived
work of things generally regarded as copyright-protected art, I guess,
as well as trademarked characters).
Photos of cars, ipods, computers, et al. are not a problem.
I still don't see why a car or an I-pod is any less copyrightable than
an action figure. A generic computer, perhaps, because its look is
purely functional. But even then, I'm sure the design of the I-mac is
copyrighted - a lot of creative work went into making the I-mac *look
good*.
Anthony