Digital Models Not Subject To Copyright

[jackb602]

This decision seems to raise a lot more questions than it answers.

 

Digital Models Not Subject To Copyright

 

Meshwerks loses copyright appeal

 

If the modelers can't copyright their work, do they have no say in how their client uses the models? Does this mean they'll have to turn down this kind of work in the future, or charge exorbitant rates since they are effectively relinquishing all rights to their work?

 

If the models have no copyright, can others use them freely, or just the original copyright holder (i.e. Toyota)? If the former is the case, then that would affirm that we are free to incorporate recognized furniture pieces and vehicles into our renderings.

 

I didn't have the patience to read the entire legal decision, but it would be interesting to have a lawyer explain the implications of the decision.

 

Jack

[AJLynn]

Key phrase: "but added nothing original to them"

[leed]

Having quickly read through the document I still am confused , I think this is only one case and reference is given to the fact that Meshworks did not do anything but replicate the car, no textures and scene setup were done by them....... so if they did they would have created a copyrightable image... but the car mesh would still be copyrighted to Toyota.... The more I look into copyright and Intellectual Property the more grey there seems to be.

 

One thing that bothers me is that there is no such things 3d computer objects, they are seen to be 2d representations of something. I do not know if this is true or not and please anybody with thoughts on this please post your thoughts...

 

As I am an visualiser, what I gleam from this is that the images I produce are copyrighted to me, but the geometry used does not....is that what this ruling is saying????

 

Lee

[AJLynn]

Apologies in advance, it's not possible to write about this sort of thing without being tedious, but the perception that this ruling is harmful isn't entirely accurate and it's important (at least for the Americans here, and specifically those working inside the 10th circuit where this opinion is binding).

 

Here are the parts I think are important:

 

Meshwerks insists that, contrary to the district court’s summary judgment determination, its digital models of Toyota cars and trucks are sufficiently original to warrant copyright protection. Meshwerks’ models, which form the base layers of computerized substitutes for product photographs in advertising, are unadorned, digital wire-frames of Toyota’s vehicles. While fully appreciating that digital media present new frontiers for copyrightable creative expression, in this particular case the uncontested facts reveal that Meshwerks’ models owe their designs and origins to Toyota and deliberately do not include anything original of their own; accordingly, we hold that Meshwerks’ models are not protected by copyright and affirm

 

...

 

To supply these digital models, Saatchi and Toyota hired Grace & Wild, Inc. (“G&W”). In turn, G&W subcontracted with Meshwerks to assist with two initial aspects of the project – digitization and modeling. Digitizing involves collecting physical data points from the object to be portrayed... some areas of detail, such as wheels, headlights, door handles, and the Toyota emblem, could not be accurately measured using current technology; those features had to be added at the second “sculpting” stage, and Meshwerks had to recreate those features as realistically as possible by hand, based on photographs.

 

...

 

With Meshwerks’ wire-frame products in hand, G&W then manipulated the computerized models by, first, adding detail, the result of which appeared on screen as a “tightening” of the wire frames, as though significantly more wires had been added to the frames, or as though they were made of a finer mesh. Next, G&W digitally applied color, texture, lighting, and animation for use in Toyota’s advertisements.

 

...

 

Specifically, defendants argued that any original expression found in Meshwerks’ products was attributable to the Toyota designers who conceived of the vehicle designs in the first place; accordingly, defendants’ use of the models could not give rise to a claim for copyright infringement... The district court agreed. It found that the wire-frame models were merely copies of Toyota’s products, not sufficiently original to warrant copyright protection

 

So the court has agreed with Toyota and their advertising firm, and the vis firm the ad firm contracted, that the subcontractor who did the modeling could not copyright the models because they contain no original creative intent (they are unadorned copies). Later on they write:

 

In addition, the work must “possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity,” ... (“both independent creation and a minimal degree of creativity are required”), though this is not to say that to count as containing a minimal degree of creativity a work must have aesthetic merit in the minds of judges (arguably not always the most artistically discerning lot). As the Court explained through Justice Holmes, even “a very modest grade of art has in it something irreducible, which is one man’s alone. That something he may copyright . . . .” ... (all that’s needed is some creative

spark, “no matter how crude, humble, or obvious”).

 

Later on they discuss photography, and a case in which the Supreme Court ruled that a photo was copyrightable:

 

“posing the said Oscar Wilde in front of the camera, selecting and arranging the costume, draperies, and other various accessories in said photograph, arranging the subject so as to present graceful outlines, arranging and disposing the light and shade, suggesting and evoking the desired expression . . . .”

 

And then, later, the most important paragraph in the thing as far as we're concerned:

 

Applying these principles, evolved in the realm of photography, to the new medium that has come to supplement and even in some ways to supplant it, we think Meshwerks’ models are not so much independent creations as (very good) copies of Toyota’s vehicles. In reaching this conclusion we rely on (1) an objective assessment of the particular models before us and (2) the parties’ purpose in creating them. All the same, we do not doubt for an instant that the digital medium before us, like photography before it, can be employed to create vivid new expressions fully protectable in copyright.

 

I'm not going to quote any further, because if this came up in court with somebody here suing a client, that would be the part your lawyer would quote - this opinion does not set precedent that digital models can not be copyrighted; it actually does the complete opposite. It rules that if a digital artist applies any creativity to the work, even if it's not done skillfully or if it's obvious, a court must recognize the digital artist's creative work without judging the merits of the creative expression. They specify (but do not limit the ruling to) a situation in which the artist is doing the same sort of work a photographer might, in lighting and composing the shot. Meshwerks did none of this (in the PDF of the ruling, Appendix A, the wireframes, is Meshwerk's work, and B, the renders, is by the firm that contracted the modeling to Meshwerks). In this case, the court ruled that digital models and image can be copyrighted, but that these particular models can not because they are done deliberately without artistic expression (if the car had been shown on a road in front of a tree is the example they give - in that case it would have been copyrightable).

 

Interestingly, thought Meshwerks alludes to breach of contract, they do not appear to have produced a contract or any evidence thereof and the court does not address breach of contract in the ruling.

 

I think the lesson here is you don't give your models to the client without a written contract on how they may be used, but even if you did, if they wanted to reuse your model they would not be able to use the materials, lights, camera, and any modeling that is not taken exactly from the architect's drawing.

[leed]

I think the lesson here is you don't give your models to the client without a written contract on how they may be used, but even if you did, if they wanted to reuse your model they would not be able to use the materials, lights, camera, and any modeling that is not taken exactly from the architect's drawing.

 

My thoughts at the moment are completely the revers of this.

 

I see it as 'The architect has rights to the model as it is a complete copy of their designed work.'

You are right about the textures and lighting, they are seen to be creative elements, but the geometry is not.....In essence you can not copyright a computer model of a building if it is drawn to a degree of accuracy from cad information... what you can copyright is an image created from the geometry...

 

Lee

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

 

"...the court noted the future looks bright for digital modeling."

 

 

gee thanks.

[Jeff Mottle]

I read the court ruling PDF in full and I do understand the basis for the ruling, but it left me with a few questions:

 

1. Why did meshworks not allow the second court to rule on the breach of contract?

2. Does copyright law supercede any contract law, assuming as the ruling suggested there is nothing original added to the model?

3. If they had been allowed to change out the car's emblem with say the Meshworks logo (modelled) or been allowed to texture it with a custom paint job, would this make the entire model now copyrightable, or is there a percentage of change from the original that makes something copyrightable?

4. If a company is selling 3d models of cars (for the sake of argument, exact replicas with photographs of the actual car being used as textures), does this mean I could steal them and then sell them as my own as they do not own a copyright? Or does the license agreement protect them? If so, how does the license agreement differ from Meshworks contract for "one time use"?

 

Very interesting case.

[JonRashid]

As I understand it in EU states the copyright lies inherently with the creator of the asset. This was modified in the nineties to cover programmers who used tools they had previously created in the completion of a subsequently, copyright covered piece of software. Under old legislation the owner of the copyright also had rights on all tools used in its creation. As far as I understand things, over here the copyright resides with the creator unless otherwise specified.

 

Otherwise, would my oils be owned by toyota if I had painted a photoreal image of one of their cars based on materials supplied by them?

[AJLynn]

My thoughts at the moment are completely the revers of this.

 

I see it as 'The architect has rights to the model as it is a complete copy of their designed work.'

You are right about the textures and lighting, they are seen to be creative elements, but the geometry is not.....In essence you can not copyright a computer model of a building if it is drawn to a degree of accuracy from cad information... what you can copyright is an image created from the geometry...

 

Lee

 

You're not required to give the 3D model to the architect; in US copyright law, just because a person may legally use something does not mean another person is required to hand over a copy. In the Meshwerks case they were under contract to provide the model files.

 

What's not clear is why they didn't pursue a breach of contract case, because if what they said about having a licensing agreement that allowed only for use for one round of ads was true, the breach of contract would be a far less gray area than a breach of copyright; especially given that the case the court cited of the liquor bottle photo did not support their argument and that they had already failed once. They could have just tossed on breach of contract for good measure, it wouldn't have required tthem to do much more work to make the case. The only thing I can think of is that the contract was weak; maybe it was worded in such a way that it assumed Meshwerks owned copyright, and therefore was granting license to use its copyright only in this instance. If that were case, breach of contract could have already been dismissed by the lower court with Meshwerks deciding not to pursue it on appeal (gray areas a a good thing there) or Meshwerks might have never filed it in the first place.

[leed]

You're not required to give the 3D model to the architect; in US copyright law, just because a person may legally use something does not mean another person is required to hand over a copy. In the Meshwerks case they were under contract to provide the model files.

 

Oh... right...

 

As far as I understand things, over here the copyright resides with the creator unless otherwise specified.

 

Otherwise, would my oils be owned by toyota if I had painted a photoreal image of one of their cars based on materials supplied by them?

 

Jon

 

this is the problem... your paintings would, unless a copy of a photograph who's copyright was owned by Toyota, be a series of creative decisions that you made, if it is a real good copy of a photo, and a then I am guessing here, but Toyota would have copyright to it.???????..I guess that does not mean they own it though...

 

 

What's not clear is why they didn't pursue a breach of contract case,

 

 

From the document....

The district court agreed. It found that the wire-frame models were merely

copies of Toyota’s products, not sufficiently original to warrant copyright

protection, and stressed that Meshwerks’ “intent was to replicate, as exactly as possible, the image of certain Toyota vehicles.” D. Ct. Op. at 8. Because there was no valid copyright, there could be no infringement, and, having granted summary judgment on the federal copyright claim, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Meshwerks’ state-law contract claim.

 

Lee

[AJLynn]

That's it. So in theory they can still pursue the breach of contract without the copyright violation in state court.

[Craig Jolly]

Could we say that based on this ruling, the closer my model gets to realistically replicating something (like a B2 bomber or a bubble chair) the more likely it is I would lose my copyright protection?

 

If I model that same B2 bomber in low-poly form, I would have copyright protection because it is no longer an exact replica?

 

I think the greatest question is how this effects companies like Dosch Design and even Evermotion. I realize the situation is different, but if Dosch does not own the copyright on an accurate 3d model of a Mercedes Benz, could anyone purchase that model and then distribute it for free? Could Mercedes purchase that model and distribute it for free?

 

Another question is if this has any implications in reverse. Can I design a custom teapot, post it for sale on Turbosquid, then sue a company for copyright infringement if they manufacture an extremely similar teapot?

 

For my work - if an architect wanted the model of his building based on this ruling (and not because it was part of the contract) I'd willingly hand over a dxf file. I think that would cover it.