Derivative works and copyright question
WendyLuvsCatz
Posts: 38,580
I am curious as to where I stand modelling a real life item and by sheer co-incidence another also models it without my knowledge then claims I copied their work?
It has not happened BTW just has been suggested to me it could and if that person modeled it first they could win in a copyright claim in court.
I need to know before I consider modeling anything and putting it out for redistribution.
Am not talking about brand name items more about not so common historical items in particular.
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
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Wendy,
I'm not a legal expert but I would have thought that the critical issue would be the mathematical mesh, rather than physical appearance. if your mesh is substantially different from the other person's then surely they wouldn't have a leg to stand on, irrespective of whether one item looks like the other.
Mind you, since when did common sense have anything to do with the law.
Cheers,
Alex.
For DAZ we are required to keep or "production" files in case some legal issues pop up, so we can show where the product comes from/how it was built. I don't think having a different mesh will do much good as there are plenty of tools to copy a shape without actually copying the mesh (decimate, retopo, remesher,...)
You need to use it or lose it in the sense that whoever gets to market first gets the rights, for example:
abc.net.au/news/2010-02-04/men-at-work-plundered-kookaburra-riff-court/321624
You need to use it or lose it in the sense that whoever gets to market first gets the rights, for example:
abc.net.au/news/2010-02-04/men-at-work-plundered-kookaburra-riff-court/321624
I don't know the song, but apparently the guys who sued owned the rights to that song. Was it an older song that they somehow claimed ownership over? I doubt anybody could claim that from now on they will own the rights to Mozarts music for example. You could play/record/sell your version of a Mozart piece, but that doesn't mean you own the rights to that piece, only to your version of the piece. Anyways that sounds logical to me but as stated, that doesn't mean it's the case :)
I don't know the song, but apparently the guys who sued owned the rights to that song. Was it an older song that they somehow claimed ownership over? I doubt anybody could claim that from now on they will own the rights to Mozarts music for example. You could play/record/sell your version of a Mozart piece, but that doesn't mean you own the rights to that piece, only to your version of the piece. Anyways that sounds logical to me but as stated, that doesn't mean it's the case :)
Elele, you are correct - somebody making a derivative work does not get copyright over the elements included in the derivative. I suspect ps1borg is confusing copyright and trademark; it's an easy confusion to make.
Normally, I'd mention a few things about derivative works and copyright, but DAZ3D's standard license grants permission to make particular derivative works - so my usual comments are irrelevant here.
Always, always keep every last one of your working files. If you begin with sketches (even thumbnail sketches that are complete garbage) scan them and store them with rest of working files. When the project is done, collect all the files into a single archive, label it so you know what it is and can find it easily should you need it and store it.
If you are modelling a real life item, there can be many factors involved. If it is a unique architectural structure, chances are the copyright to the design belongs to architect or whomever purchased the rights to the design. If a product is trademarked or patented, the rights to it's design belong to the holder of the TM or patent.
One, much depends upon who holds the rights and how active they are in protecting it. Auto companies used to be very protective of their rights. One reason an artist who creates some excellent aircraft model put disclaimers and other warning on the download pages is the aircraft design holders are still very protective.
If you take a generic running shoe and model it, you're not likely to have problems. If you take a very distinctive running shoe and create an exact model of, you may or may not have problems. Depends on the company.
I meant a model that closely resembles another's but was created independently modeled possibly from the same photo or illustration even on wikipedia for example.
this came up because firstly a friend modelled a cuff with bindings that closely resembled something that appeared in the Daz store a week later yet we both knew he did his independently.
Then yesterday I modeled something that I afterwards found another had done too, and much better by looks than mine but another friend felt I could be accuesed of copying it.
If you modeled from a picture, add the picture to working files. It's at least something to point at and say this is what I used if someone states you used another artists mesh even just to look at.
The other model that is similar, did you download it or do you own it? I'm not implying anything, just playing Devil's Advocate here. There's a big difference between looking at product or a freebie on the website and actually having it on your system.
no I saw it googling AFTER I modeled and uploaded mine to sharecg
not something I would buy, is on a site for adult content and slightly different use for what was a medieval instrument of torture I first saw on the TV series "Bones".
The copyright to the design of the original work might be held by the architect, but that shouldn't be an issue - the design of a virtual work is different form the design of a physical work. (The poly count of a room made of separate struts, floorboards, drywall, plaster, and so on would be so high that you'd need a powerful computer to render it. Virtual room models are made of plane primitives instead - and that means the design is completely different.)
A patent only applies to a method or process of making something. A tool to automate a process in Hexagon could be patented, but the products of that tool couldn't.
Trademarks... yes, you have to watch out for trademarks.
think i saw that episode. it was the depressed intern? and the auction?
Independent creation is fine with copyright (very different than patent law, where the rule is "first come, first serve"), of course as long as there is no actual copying involved. If you are using photos to create 3d models, remember that (in the case of wikipedia) only the photograph is Creative Commons, not the thing it shows. So if you use a photo of a car to create a model of the car, you are copying the car, not the photo. So in your case it is rather unlikely that the modeler that did the other cuffs would accuse anybody from doing something similar,if the cuffs are just derived from real cuffs (unless of course, if he is the original cuff designer who just happens to practise 3d modeling for a hobby).
Torture device...ewww....
Patents, Trademarks. Don't know the differences or similarities from Adam. I know the little symbols and if I see one anywhere near a project file, I kick it over to Legal. We have a whole department full of people who are paid to figure out what's what and where's where. Besides, they get paid a heck of lot more than I do so l let them handle things like that. One of the few times I can pass the buck so to speak.
yes indeed, the item I made was the one used to murder the comic convention stall cosplay girl
a choke pear.
Ask the professionals - always the best option.
Send yourself a physical copy (burn on CD) of your work and everything that you used to do it and above all, don't open it. You'll have a proof of your work and the date it was done
I don't think it was the way it was meant to work either - the idea was that you put a stamp across the envelopes flap(s) and had it franked so that it was dated and couldn't be opened without losing the integrity of the stamp. In any event, it has been ruled to be invalid as a way of proving ownership as far as I am aware, and the way stamps are applied and cancelled would probably stop it from working in many places even if it hadn't.
That approach does not fly as proof of authorship in the USA. Unless you actually bring suid, you dont need to do anything but to produce and author your document. If you want to be able to enforce copyrights, then its recommended to register your copyrighted work with the US Copyright Office.
In the specific situation Wendy is describing, infringement is not a concern unless you plan to sell copyrighted work As others said, competing 3d representations of non-copyrighted designs are not and issue even if does not have apparent distinguishable differences. As long it IS NOT a copy of the other persons 3d model itself nor represented as such. Just sign your texture materials to avoid this. You can also embed 3d lettering as a identifiers in our geometry. Early on I made this 3d sweatdrop and shared it on Rendo. Its got a near transparent texture, yet its identifiable as mine because INSIDE the mesh is a mesh that are my initials... teeny tiny ones. And this wheelbarrow in my icon, its pan is embossed with my website. :)
Just make your model and dont waste time worrying about what may or may not happen. If you dwell on this fear you will never make anything and grow and end up being held back. Just make it and go.
I think the point I am trying to make is
do people get accused of copying other artists in their modeling
and
can it end up in court?
I would like to know if anyone has had this unpleasant experience.
If it was a frequent issue then you'd hear about it. Again, just dont worry about it. Afterall, there is nothing new under the sun.
The worst thing you can do is try to analyze every step and end up never taking one.
Just to be clear, in the case of a model of something that previously exists in the public domain... which a medieval instrument of torture like a chokepear would clearly does... the only copyright that anyone could possibly claim it is for that one specific design. To use a more familiar example in the same vein, you can't copyright the idea of a 3D model of a pair of handcuffs, because they've been in existence in some form or another for hundreds of years. Nor can you copyright or patent the design of a pair of handcuffs that are specifically modeled after a real set of handcuffs. However, if you design a completely unique set of handcuffs that look like a pair of diamond-studded crabs, that you could protect. Similarly, no one can copyright the name or trademark the character of "Snow White" because it's in the public domain. However, Disney can (and has) successfully prosecuted cases in which someone has copied the costume worn by "Disney's Snow White TM".
As to how much anyone can actually protect... well, it depends on how much money you have, how much you're willing to spend and in how many countries you're going to try to do it in, and whether you think you have a chance in hell of winning. Apple currently spends more money on legal fees than they do on research and development, but despite a number of victories concerning design patents in the U.S., it hasn't stopped Android's steadily march to total market dominance.
I'm sure this case reference from Standord law will help out. One way or another.
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/case/inhale-inc-v-starbuzz-tobacco-inc/
:)
I have a good example of someone getting upset with me over this. At the one art site I am a part of I posted a picture I made up of a celebrity look alike. Now in order to make this celebrity I had purchased 2 other morphs for V4 that also look like this person. I took what I thought were the best parts of both morphs after Gen Xing them to Genesis and exported an OBJ of them and then modified the morph and height and shape even farther. I also did this with the textures taking the 2 textures and making them into one then modifying them. Then I composed my picture which had several of these modified celebrity look a likes in them. Well after posting, one of the makers was saying that I was not labeling his/her product properly. Well first off I bought "license" to it I can modify it how I want to (after all it wouldn't be art if I couldn't).Second, just because I have a lot of people in the render that look kind of like "Stars" doesn't mean that they are the "Stars" that they look like.....lol. There was another thing I noticed and this is the kicker...
When labeling a render with a name of a character that was similar to a character in a show I used to watch. I found that Someone took a copy of my render and posted it on another site devoted to .... Characters in shows...lol. One thing I can say on this whole subject is I'm not making any money nor looking to as of yet with my art works. What is going to happen When I finally use my Microsoft Kinect for Windows to model? Its never actually going to read the same exact point cloud twice but the models it makes will look almost identical.....
Fixed Points in a base mesh and point orders are really the only thing that are really copyrightable. I could put Poser 4 legacy shape on Genesis 2 for my "own" use and the creator really couldn't do anything about it......Vice versa I guess but I haven't done any of those yet...lol (I like Daz Studio for character creation).
One more thing and I'll stop. What is going to happen once I'm able to take that blood sample and model myself and others using DNA samples? Seems so far away but when most of us were born 40 plus years ago calculators were pretty big and the Adding Machine still had paper.
>>What is going to happen once I’m able to take that blood sample and model myself and others using DNA samples?<<</p>
We will need to register our dna then for copyright protection. :~
Just yesterday my dentist was talking about getting a 3d tooth scanner and crown printer. Instant 3d teeth can you imagine? They call it "digital dentistry". I should encourage it and see he will loan it out for a weekend - I've got some ideas ;)
dentists just buy gadgets and make it more expensive
I cannot afford fillings as it is, just bloody drill and cement fill needed
I was surprised to see... they got an app for that! https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=powerdrill2.toy.massacre
Dentists, ugh. Not ever going near one if I can help it...
Here's another related question.
Let's say someone makes a character in Studio, (or ZBrush, or MudBox or Maya, take your pick) and I use the character as a drawing reference. Mind you I'm not creating a 3D asset and all I'm doing is drawing a reference of the figure using digital or normal media (so it's a representation of the character/sculpture).
Does drawing (or creating a digital painting) using a character concept made by someone else copyright infringement?
Actually - yes, its possible if that someone's character is copyrighted. It goes both ways, a 3d representation of a 2d or real world tangible shape that referenced copyright details and features, would be considered an infringement by most courts. Same with the reverse. See the above "bong" case reference I cited, as its basically what that was about.