UK law on photos (CG too?) of designer objects

[Ernest Burden III]

I'm not sure what to make of this. It appears to be just a UK thing, but I can see it creeping into the rest of the modern world, since large 'rights-owners' can see dollar/pound signs in the idea.

 

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/you-may-soon-need-a-licence-to-take-photos-of-that-classic-designer-chair-you-bought/

 

I recall there was an issue where Turbosquid got accused of copyright infringement (I think by descendants of Douglas Aircraft, for hosting a model of an old DC3 if memory serves me non-fatally), and now Turbosquid has a splash about 'you know these are not real objects, right -- click Accept'. But of course a digital model is not a reproduction airplane. Right?

 

Should a photo, or CG photo-real-ish rendering of an Eames chair be treated as an infringement of the design copyright? It sounds absurd, but isn't that the point of this British law? Many users here are British, is this something you are worried about, using objects (furniture, cars, lamps) in renderings that are subject to copyright of their design?

 

And if it is a violation to publish a PHOTOGRAPH of an Eames chair, is a really convincing CG rendering also a violation?

 

This all seems ridiculous.

[RyderSK]

Your analogy is correct...

 

taking a photo of the item will often require a licence from the copyright owner regardless of who owns the particular object in question.

 

This is just wrong on every possible level, regardless if licence holders will follow with it or now. First the "right of panorama" now this ? Things can't get more absurd.

[TomasEsperanza]

Well this new to me. It does seem silly, doesn't it, but at least it doesn't specifically mention Arch-Viz.

 

(Btw, my personal political view is that the current UK Gov have no integrity at all. They're full of really bizarre ideas, usually with a hidden agenda concerning lining their pockets).

 

But this particular legislation may not amount to much, depending on how people respond to it and how it would be enforced. Care over such matters will probably become visible as a culture in the industry if companies are prosecuted, if not, then no-one will care and will continue to follow common sense. So, It will likely take a few unsuspecting guinea pigs to fall fowl of this before anyone takes heed, but if people push the boundaries and nothing happens, then visualisers probably won't allow such restrictive bureaucracy to impede practical everyday business.

 

Without wishing to be facetious: maybe we'll see less Barcelona Chairs etc.

 

It could be a real pain though, but I suppose (given that when visualisers incorporate furnishings that the client likes, the client may well purchase said item) some product manufacturers and retailers would not wish to deter the use of their products anyway. For instance, the manufacturers website is often my first port of call for a model, CAD, and reference photos.

 

I guess bigger companies will have legal advice.

[Chris MacDonald]

What an absolutely patently ridiculous law. How does one enforce it?

 

Presumably 3D models count because they are based on an original design, despite never actually existing. Why on earth would anybody want to try to police something so ambiguous?

[Scott Schroeder]

What is an artistic object? Can it be considered clothing as well? This is a very stupid consideration for law. If a photo of an object becomes illegal, then an rendering of a digital replica I would assume falls into the same category of illegality. So we need to follow Richard Prince's photo appropriation and just draw dicks on all of our models so we can say that we've added enough transformative content to the object to avoid copyright.

 

I know on occasion there are issues with props in video games, especially guns for example, that come under copyright fire (pun intended). However, it is not necessarily the gun model. It is the fact that they've called with the Colt 1911, maybe even used Colt's logo on the gun, without permission from Colt. So if you make a Colt 1911, just call it the.45 handgun and you are good to go.

[notamondayfan]

I'm going to print a t-shirt, in my own design, copyright it, register it, etc, then attend public events (football matches, gigs, anywhere where there are photographers), then wait a few days for picture to surface, then suit the balls off them, I'll be freaking rich!!

 

But what an absurd "law", every photo I take has some form of someone else's design (OK my fantastic shots of skies and moor land may be OK), but really, how much protection do products need?!

If this law is enforceable, and say a chair designer sees their product in a CGI which cost £xxxx, and they sue for x%, I might as well learn how to flip burgers now, or move! Way to go UK "government"!

[Chris MacDonald]

Copied from our little social media feed at work after I posted the link...

 

I suggest that the Ars Technica report is just completely wrong - a misreading of the facts which has now been propagated all over the internet. The copyright issue applies to MAKING replica chairs not photographing them - Check out http://www.dezeen.com/2015/02/20/uk-government-sets-2020-deadline-replica-furniture-production/ for a more logical interpretation of the changes being made. So carry on putting them in renderings - but do you realise how uncomfortable some of these designer chairs are? I have a Wassily chair gathering dust if anyone wants to try it out, though that said my Breuer dining chairs are fine - apart from leaving a cane-patterned mark in your posterior!

[TomasEsperanza]

Ah ha! Well this clearly makes a lot more sense!; the news has been misinterpreted and propagated, hence the alarm at the threat of an apparently illogical law.

 

Well done, for putting us straight Macker!

[notamondayfan]

I'm still gonna make my own t-shirt though!