On 5/21/06, Daniel Kinzler daniel@brightbyte.de wrote:
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*.
The reason is the concept of "character copyright". Google for it. On a first glance, I found this to be interesting: http://www.ivanhoffman.com/jointauthors.html (about half way down).
Regards -- Daniel
Yes, characters are copyrighted. But that doesn't say that a car or an I-pod isn't. In the case of cars:
"Copyright law is an additional, but less commonly used, legal protection for automobile designs. The application of copyright law is via a specific category of sculptural works, recognized as being protected in their three-dimensional form. Copyright protection arises when (1) a specific feature of the design is original - that is, possessing more than a mere quantum of creativity in its design, and (2) that specific feature exists separate and apart from the feature's functional aspect." http://www.metrocorpcounsel.com/current.php?artType=view&artMonth=June&a...
The same would be true of the Ipod - functional aspects of the design would not be copyrightable, but creative asaesthetic aspects of the design would (though I doubt I can find a link specifically describing this in terms of the Ipod).
Anthony