bogus IP threats against digital artists

[Ernest Burden III]

I just saw this article posted on BoingBoing. It is about a 3D modeler who's model of an airplane was taken down by TurboSquid after they got a nastygram from the company that made the real plane--during WWII

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/03/21/wwii-bomber-trademar.html

 

Certain building owners have tried to push the argument that images of their property are under their copyright or trademank--example, the owners of NY's Chrysler Building. It hasn't worked so far, thank goodness.

 

We are typically hired to produce a 'portrait' of a building or environment. When will we start getting love-letters from other people's lawyers saying we cannot use our own renderings to promote our businesses because we're showing designs they own? I think there is a way to answer that claim should it be made.

 

But what of this new one about models? If you model a car and sell it, you will end up getting the same letters TurboSquid is getting. I would think TS would just laugh at then, but the article says they are taking down content. And what about when we show a Ford Mustang in a renderings, which by nature we are selling to a client? Will we be fighting this battle soon? By nature of the work, we have the permission of the designer/owner to show their project, but the entourage? Every time we re-create a manufactured object of trade in a computer model or visualization and use it in our businesses should we be required to seek permission, pay a licensing fee or be un-able to create it? Its sounds too ridiculous to even ask, but it seems like that is what TurboSquid has decided for us.

 

Its ironic--the push to protect artistic rights simply leap-frogged the artists and went straight to the level of companies who want to grab all rights for everything, not just reasonable protection of legitimate trade assets.

 

Jeff-- perhaps this should be a news item? Perhaps we should think about a response before we start getting the legal notices.

[ikinman]

I had a conversation a few days ago with a woman who works as an artistic director for motion pictures. Her work these days is now entirely legal, making certain that they have permission to use every single object in a movie scene, down to the flatware being used at a table setting. Furniture in movies is now almost all custom, as it's less expensive to build it from scratch than to get permissions from the manufacturers of every last item. She basically said that it's a nightmare.

 

However, she also said that the reason that the big studios are going to such extremes is not because of some laws or cases that have been decided by a court, but because of the exact opposite - nothing's been decided on this by any court, and they want to play it safe; they don't want their own studio to be the first test case.

 

So, yes, this is an emerging issue that is going to effect all of us, and not just architectural visualizers, but all graphic artists. Imagine having to get permission for every last piece of entourage in your rendering - it would be a complete nightmare. Of course, then you could solve it by turning over the copyright of the images to the architect - then it's their damn problem!

 

As far as the Chrysler Building, we had that problem with the New York City models that were sold and leased. The data set for the Chrysler Building was (is) accurate, and the owners of the Empire State Building were also hinting at the same basic idea - give us money every time you sell the model of New York City or we'll sue. Our lawyers said, 'Bring it on,' and neither the Chrysler Building or the Empire State Building ever did sue. The issue of the Chrysler Building is more of my doing a drawing of it, and making it into a postcard and selling it to tourists, rather than having a digital model of it in a background of one of my renderings. But the line is grey, without a court decision, and those with power are trying to push people around.

 

Time to push back.

 

-Ian

[gfa2]

I always found the little legal blurb on Dosch's website about their car models interesting. They recommend that you contact the manufacturers of the cars (DaimlerChrysler, VW etc.) and ask them permission to use the Dosch models in your rendering. I'm thinking...yeah, I really want to open that can or worms!

[Ernest Burden III]

I always found the little legal blurb on Dosch's website about their car models interesting. They recommend that you contact the manufacturers of the cars (DaimlerChrysler, VW etc.) and ask them permission to use the Dosch models in your rendering.

 

I never noticed that. So they are saying in plain language that they cannot guarantee customers will be able to use their products for the purposes for which they are advertised and sold. Beautiful. And if they think it may be a problem to sell rendered images of their models, they feel comforted that it's still OK to sell the models, which are much closer to the original product that a picture. Its a CYA that doesn't.

 

I would bet that a company that makes toy vehicles licenses the design and/or the use of the name of the car/plane whatever. Do they have to, or is it just assumed without proof?

 

There are differing laws in various US states about use of a persons 'image', some only to celebrities, some to anyone. As we use more photo entourage in renderings that becomes a possible issue for us, as well.

 

About the use of manufactured objects in movies, I had thought all the care about what items are used was a result of 'product placement' fees, meaning movie studios didn't want to put in a chair chosen by the scenic designer (heaven forbid!) when another manufacturer would cough up some cash to use their chair instead. Or Skittles--ET throw up. Every detail becomes a revenue opportunity. Apparently from Ian's post its become every detail is more importantly a IP liability risk.

 

Time to push back.

 

That's what I'm thinking.

 

The place to start may be TurboSquid. It sounds like they need some help locating their backbones, maybe Dosch as well. I don't buy a lot from TurboSquid, but now I'd rather pay somebody to model something new than reward TS for caving to idiotic Intellectual Property claims. I wonder how many people in our industry we could get to sign a letter to TS telling them to fight back or we won't buy? Because when a large operation like TS is so quick to bend over the sink, it just emboldens the on-retainer corporate lawyers to swim up to the beach looking for easy prey. Do we really want to see the RIAA's nasty tactics aimed at us? Most of us are going to have more at risk that a bunch of college students downloading crappy MP3s for free.

 

I'm not afraid to fight back if someone used dubious and sloppy legal claims (like confusing copyright with trademark) but I'd rather not have to in the first place. The blog I linked to, BoingBoing, is very active in IP sanity, debunking bogus IP claims. If we do have an organized 'push back' we could probably get some press from them.

[Nic H]

Sounds like overhyped garbage, Id like to see a test case get anywhere following this logic. Hilarious and completely over the top.

 

Boycott turbosquid, hopefully they become obselete in a few years anyways.

[landrvr1]

We're definitely getting into some serious gray area in terms of law. It really does get down to how many lawyers you have/how deep your pockets are vs the other guy. Turbo Squid is probably two dudes holed up in some attic in the Ukrain; so it's not surprising that they would cave.

 

By and large these companies just don't have a legal leg to stand on, and the civil courts have already ruled on some of these 'image' cases. One of the more famous cases involved the Guggenheim museum. They have an enormous amount of legal jargon on their website, which contains this bit:

 

Legal Information

The name Guggenheim and the interior and exterior images of the Guggenheim Museum are registered trademarks of the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation. They may not be used for commercial purposes without the express permission of the Guggenheim; this includes the use of Museum building images that are lawfully obtained from an outside stock house or other source.

 

LOL. There was a film or TV series made a few years back - I can't remember the name - in which an exterior shot of the Guggenheim was featured. They sued. They lost. The court said you can have all the rules you want, but as long as the building is viewed from public areas it's fair game. Too bad, so sad.

 

Apple tried to raise a bit of a fuss when some nice 3D models of iPods starting popping up. They dropped the issue pretty quickly because, while you can copyright a design, you can't really copyright an image of that design - no matter how it's created. If I started making pencil sharpeners that looked exactly like an iPod, we've got a problem. If I draw an image of that, and then sell that image, I've got a lot less to worry about.

 

However, if my drawing has the Apple logo or any kind of trademark, I'd better not be too surprised if some serious legal bitchslapping comes my way.

 

Because that area - logos and trademarks - is where most of the trouble has been and will continue to be...

 

I don't think the 3D model issue is really that big of problem; mostly because it costs a helluva lot of money to sick your attorneys on somebody. Even the largest of large companies aren't interested in chasing down something unless there's a serious financial or branding threat.

 

The most important aspect in all this would be CONTEXT. Let's pretend someone takes a picture of a puppy dog sitting on an Aeron chair, and that picture shows up on dog calenders around the world. There's no way Herman Miller is going to sue; regardless of how much money is made. They also won't give a crap whether or not the artist has got permission to use the chair in a photo. Now, let's say that the photo shows an Aeron chair killing somebody (weird and crazy, I know). The photographer and publisher can probably expect a call from the Miller attorneys.

[landrvr1]

I had a conversation a few days ago with a woman who works as an artistic director for motion pictures. Her work these days is now entirely legal, making certain that they have permission to use every single object in a movie scene, down to the flatware being used at a table setting. Furniture in movies is now almost all custom, as it's less expensive to build it from scratch than to get permissions from the manufacturers of every last item. She basically said that it's a nightmare.

 

I'm not going to say that your source was wrong, but....she's wrong. For the most part.

 

I know a few people who are set designers/coordinators. There are a select few furniture and accessory manufacturers who have raised a stink about their products showing up on film and television, and those entities are widely known and avoided in the industry.

 

Ernest is correct. This is about product placement, and the enormous sums of money that the studios now make. Not too many years ago - before product placement was the norm - you would regularly see classic Knoll, Vitra, and Herman Miller pieces on shows. Recently, you see less and less - and on shows that have HUGE budgets and success. The show HOUSE is a great example. In his office he's got a horrid knockoff of a classic Eames Lounge Chair and Ottoman.

 

American Idol is another example. (Yes, I watch it. Sue me.). The judges sit on some bad Eames Soft Pad knockoffs. What? That show can't afford the real thing? Hardly.

 

Production companies aren't going to cheap knockoffs because they can't be bothered with paying royalties or obtaining permissions. What's happened is far more stupid. The production companies will now routinely contact a manufacturer and demand a fee in order to use their product in their Big Budget Movie or Powerful MiniSeries That You Can't Miss. When these companies tell them to f*%k off (as they rightfully should), the knockoffs and/or bad custom products make their appearance.

 

Incidently, the set designers find all this really intolerable. They are architects and designers by trade. They WANT to use the real thing, but can't because of product placement greed.

[Sawyer]

I don't know how this will turn out but when it comes down to photography it seems pretty clear. I mean everything was made by some one. Right? If I wanted to sell a photo that had no "products" in it I would be limited to nature shots. Everything else has been made. I don't see why a renderer would be placed under different category than a photographer. And where would a line get drawn if BMW wants all images removed with their cars in them would Pella windows do the same?

 

Maybe a modeler is a little less clear - you could be making money from "copying" another product? I don't know.