Modelling Questions - How to Know What is Legal?
CathyM
Posts: 261
Sorry if I have put this post in the wrong forum, but it seemed it might reach more people who might know the answer here... I am trying to learn how to create models myself - and am not sure what sort of approach I need to take if I want to model something that really exists...
If I want to photograph something for reference and/or textures, such as a building, do I need to ask permission of the building's owner first? If I made a model of that building, would it be legal to actually sell it without permission of the owner, or would I need the architect's permission? Is there an amount of time when the "copyright" would wear off like it does with books and art? (Well, it seems not all art and books, I don't know how that works either.)
If you make a model of an existing piece of clothing, do you have to worry about the designer? How far back in time would that be the case? If you copied a movie or TV set, would that be okay for old movies or shows but not for new ones, or just not at all?
Thanks for any help or advice anyone might offer :) Cathy
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Hi Cathy (from another Cathie!)
I googled "is it legal to make 3d models of buildings" and this came up. Note it's just opinions and not legal advice.
http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/trademark-infringements-in-3d-models.36086/
http://forums.cgsociety.org/archive/index.php/t-866339.html
and there's a lot more.
I'd say use the basic design but make major changes so it's more of an original.
Hi Cathie! Wow thanks for looking that up... What a can of worms lol. I sort of avoided trying to find real legal docs about this question because I can't ever make sense of legalize - it's like my brain covers it's ears and sings nana na na na... (Same thing happens when I try complex math problems). So I guess basically you're right, safest would be not to try an exact copy of anything. (Even if offered free, apparently could still be a problem).
Seems strange that you can't make a model of your own home - but if it was designed by someone else, probably wouldn't be a good idea except for your own use. I don't know how you could even find out about who designed older homes. And, say a home or barn over 100 years old - what if no one even knows who designed them... I think books fall into public domain after so long, but I don't know if there's anything like that for designs on buildings and homes.
If you are trying to make models of buildings or towns, or period clothing, and you change things too much, then it is no longer accurate.
After doing some googling myself I came across this website http://photosecrets.com/do-i-need-permission which brings up some interesting points - if it's legal to photograph buildings and sell the photographs, why would it not be legal to artistically model these buildings?
I found this http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/taking-care-business/505948-do-you-need-permission-shoot-building-externally.html website had a forum post that quoted US copyright law as stating: : "The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place." Soooo would that also include 3d modeling?
Seems like there could be a lot of grey areas to this. -Cathy
Yes you need to put some form noticeable artistic freedom(changes). You can't make an exact copy
There is no real consistency in the law (of any country). It is an amorphous globule wherein certain connections or distinctions are emphasised by interested and influential parties for their own benefit. The fact that Renderosity can sell models of Fords and BMWs (though DAZ wouldn't) suggests that the lawyers are looking in other directions, and so I would doubt that anything but the most overt exploitation of a currently popular marque would be a problem.
I am somewhat familiar with the laws on photography. You can legally photograph people in public owned places where these is no expectation of privacy, such as on the street. You can post those photos on a photo sharing site on the internet. You can NOT sell the photos to a stock photo company or for commercial use without a signed release for anyone who is recognizable in the photograph. (There is an exception to this for news organizations. A news organization can buy and distribute photographs that are connected to a news story without any release.)
(Note: just because it is legal, doesn't mean that people will not get mad at you for taking their picture in public or ask you to stop. It also does not mean that police officers actually know this law. Photographs do get arrested for taking pictures in public places, although charges are almost always dropped.)
The law on buildings is a little less clear, but many lawyers advise photographs that they need a signed release from the owner of a private building before selling photographs of that building for commercial purposes.
I would guess that a lawyer would tell you to get a signed release before selling a model of a privately owned building.
Even though the law is pretty clear that you can photograph buildings from the public sidewalk, post 911 many buildings have private security guards that will tell you otherwise. I was trying to photograph an interesting looking light fixture on the outside of the Adobe world headquarters building in downtown San Jose when a security guard came running out of the building tell me that the part of the side walk I was standing on was private property, I was trespassing and not allowed to photograph the building from there. Legally speaking this is total BS, but I was not going to argue with him so I left. Since this was the Adobe headquarter and Adobe makes a significant amount of its income from photographers (Photoshop, Lightroom), I wrote a letter to the president of Adobe describing the incident and pointing out that photographers are Adobe's customers and accusing your customers of trespassing for standing on the sidewalk in front of you headquarters building is not a good way to treat your customers. A month later I got a letter of apology from the head of Adobe security.
Even if it is legal to sell a model of a building without the owners permission, it might not stop an owner from suing you for doing it. You are much better off to get a release.
My two cars are Lamborghini's by design but there are changes to both besides just the logos and names. THere is nothing new under the sun so let someone elses work inspire you and use artistic licencing to make the changes you want. For non commercial use as in just doing it for your own sake, copy away.
And GORGEOUS. :)
But then ... I bought these 3 vehicles in the picture below
There a license text that says I can use it commercially in the form of renders ...
But reading your posts now ... I kind of doubt
these items do not seem to have any modification, appear to be accurate to the real model.
in this case it will be a problem?
I have no idea of the legality...but I'd sure like to know where you bought these :) I can just so see psychedelic hippy florals painted on that van!
edited and removed by user
The proverbial can of worms, one of the few subjects i have found where the more research i did ,at first, the more confused i became.
But hang in there and perservere and you will be able to build a set of guidelines to help steer yourself in the right direction and keep you out of trouble.
In a world where corporations own colors and even images of particular trees can be claimed, its best to tread carefully. Its fairly safe to say 'Im not lovin it' but its the world we live in and anyone who ignores the risks does so at there own peril. Nothing drains a bank account quicker then fighting a copyright suit with Disney.
All i can say is do your research and consider that copyright, trademark and IP laws vary from country to country as well.
These laws are constantly in the courts and are evolving even now and there really is no black and white answers.
Lone Cypress copyrighted (http://www.nytimes.com/1990/08/02/us/monterey-journal-trees-and-trademarks-the-disputes-run-deep.html)
''It's not the physical ownership of the tree, but the ownership of the intellectual concept of the tree,'' Mr. Babero said.
Making slight changes may not protect you either if its seen to be derivative of work already protected. And stating sure I copied it and just changed the name is an extremely precarious position if the rights holder ever seeks to protect there interests. It may be seen as some defence in a trademark suit as in "the logo is similar but has clearly defineable differences" but very shaky ground if the IP is challenged. In my understanding the shape of a car would be protected under http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_design_right or even just base copyright and a 3d model using a recognised shape could be seen as derivative. That said its just my opinion and not legal advice. But it does help outline the complexity of the issues here
https://graphicartistsguild.org/tools_resources/trademark-copyright-and-related-legalities
When it comes to real world objects such as buildings and vehicles, I dont see a difference between rendering an image using a 3D model and selling it or taking a picture of the real thing and selling it.
if i model a tree, will god come after me?
I have no idea of the legality...but I'd sure like to know where you bought these :) I can just so see psychedelic hippy florals painted on that van!
Here
http://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/?ViewProduct=87349
the ReadMe Volkswagen Combi
says:
Usage License:
You are completely free to use this figure in any commercial or non-commercial render, image, or animation.
You are free to use the enclosed template files to make your own textures. You are free to redistribute your own textures as you wish, provided they do not use any images found in this zip file.
You may NOT sell or give away any files found in this zip package without express permission.
...
If I suffer a lawsuit, can I transfer the blame on the guy who modeled?
...+1
...this has concerned me as well.
I know there are a lot of "freebie" vehicles, aircraft, etc available and most stipulate "personal use only". I am fine with that as I don't"sell my pics anyway.
However there are a number of items I really want (and in some cases need) that are not available (at least not at an affordable price) like an accurate full size 9' concert grand piano (Steinway D Model or Böesendorfer Imperial), an accurate "classic" pipe organ (with proper console/pedalboard), "classic" GMC, Flxible, Marmon & Twin Coach transit and intercity buses like one would see on US streets and highways in the 1950's - 70s, and streetcars (including the "PCC" streamlined style).
For properly detailed commercial/civilian aircraft the pickings are terribly slim. Save for a very nice 737 over at Rendo, VanishingPoint's Concorde and Super G Constellation, not much available. It is disappointing that one can find well modelled military aircraft (even as freebies), but when it comes to civilian ones, it seems the attention to accuracy just isn't there.
For example, Been looking for a Vickers Super VC-10 to use in the story I am working on, however all I can find are the RAF tanker version (3DS Max only at exorbitant prices) and one version at VanishingPoint that looks more like bizjet than the actual sleek British designed intercontinental jetliner that became a BOAC icon in the "pre-Concorde" days.
Also would love to see a few of the "classic" jetliners done well like the De Havilland Comet 4, Douglas DC-8, Boeing 707/720, Boeing 727, Convair 880/990, Hawker-Siddley Trident, Sud Aviation Caravalle, Tupolev TU104/124, TU154, IL62, and Antonov AN-76, as well as the big turbo props like the Lockheed L-188, Fokker 27/Fairchild 227, Convair 580, Bristol Britannia, Vickers Viscount & Vanguard, TU-114D, Antonov-22, and IL-18.
This is why I will probably need to seriously take up modelling myself though still hard pressed to find a stable application (64 bit) that doesn't require either winning the lotto or dealing with an overly cumbersome UI.
But ... God no!
The problem is men here on earth ... God made all things simple, the men that complicate everything.
Modeling a tree ... If God comes, you ask for forgiveness and he absolves the penalty,
But ... If the man alleged owner of the tree reference come after you ... He'll want to ... Money!
...unfortunately way too true.