http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...no-3d-printing-of-our-alien-super-8-cubes.ars
Summary: This guy makes detailed 3D models of things he sees in movies, then sends them off to a 3D Printer to fabricate them and sells them. When he did this for the cubes from the movie Super 8, he got a Cease & Desist letter from Paramount.
Linked from the Ars Technica article is this one: http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/3d-printing-expands-how-you-should-think-abou which explains that copyright does not automatically attach to physical objects and props used in movies. It does admit however that the cubes may be one case where it does.
My own thoughts: There are a few comparisons we could make here. Some kosher, some not so much. You could compare it to copying a song. Even granting that you perform it yourself, this is not legal if you sell the copies, which Blatt is. Actually, it's still not legal even if you don't sell the copies. This is probably not a fair comparison though: Blatt's copying an item seen in a movie, not a whole movie. A more apt analogy would be copying say, a single riff, or just a single lyric, or even just the beat.
The main problem I think is that Paramount plans to license these things themselves. Otherwise, a claim of Fair Use could easily use the "What is the effect upon the value of the original version?" clause as a defense. Replicating the cube has no effect on the value of the original if the original has no value, which it wouldn't if it were not the basis of a design to be sold. Blatt's replica would obviously have no effect on the value of the movie itself (or perhaps a positive effect).
Another example along those lines would be OCRemix.org, the site Extra Credits gets most of its music from. The game tunes that artists remix and upload to the site are absolutely protected by copyright, but how many of them are going to be sold--separately from the game they belong to--by the company that owns them? Not many I'll wager. Ergo, the remixes have no effect on their value, thus fall under Fair Use quite easily.
Now to shift gears: in the world of game modding, it is illegal to rip models from games which do not explicitly state you can do this, and distributing a mod containing ripped models is a quick way to get yourself banned from reputable modding sites like the Nexus family of sites. However, if you painstakingly make a replica from scratch, this is perfectly kosher and legal (it helps that it's easily provable that you rolled your own). Actually, this mentality applies to pretty much everything. Do it yourself or get permission, period, is the rule.
Note the comments on the public knowledge article: one of them refers to a UK court case where someone was making replica Imperial stormtrooper helmets. The case is on appeal, but the defendant won the first round.
So yay or nay, and why? After writing this, I think I've decided that the way it ought to be is that there is no blanket yes or no answer as there is with music, games, or film, and each case deserves to be tried on its own merit.
Summary: This guy makes detailed 3D models of things he sees in movies, then sends them off to a 3D Printer to fabricate them and sells them. When he did this for the cubes from the movie Super 8, he got a Cease & Desist letter from Paramount.
Linked from the Ars Technica article is this one: http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/3d-printing-expands-how-you-should-think-abou which explains that copyright does not automatically attach to physical objects and props used in movies. It does admit however that the cubes may be one case where it does.
My own thoughts: There are a few comparisons we could make here. Some kosher, some not so much. You could compare it to copying a song. Even granting that you perform it yourself, this is not legal if you sell the copies, which Blatt is. Actually, it's still not legal even if you don't sell the copies. This is probably not a fair comparison though: Blatt's copying an item seen in a movie, not a whole movie. A more apt analogy would be copying say, a single riff, or just a single lyric, or even just the beat.
The main problem I think is that Paramount plans to license these things themselves. Otherwise, a claim of Fair Use could easily use the "What is the effect upon the value of the original version?" clause as a defense. Replicating the cube has no effect on the value of the original if the original has no value, which it wouldn't if it were not the basis of a design to be sold. Blatt's replica would obviously have no effect on the value of the movie itself (or perhaps a positive effect).
Another example along those lines would be OCRemix.org, the site Extra Credits gets most of its music from. The game tunes that artists remix and upload to the site are absolutely protected by copyright, but how many of them are going to be sold--separately from the game they belong to--by the company that owns them? Not many I'll wager. Ergo, the remixes have no effect on their value, thus fall under Fair Use quite easily.
Now to shift gears: in the world of game modding, it is illegal to rip models from games which do not explicitly state you can do this, and distributing a mod containing ripped models is a quick way to get yourself banned from reputable modding sites like the Nexus family of sites. However, if you painstakingly make a replica from scratch, this is perfectly kosher and legal (it helps that it's easily provable that you rolled your own). Actually, this mentality applies to pretty much everything. Do it yourself or get permission, period, is the rule.
Note the comments on the public knowledge article: one of them refers to a UK court case where someone was making replica Imperial stormtrooper helmets. The case is on appeal, but the defendant won the first round.
So yay or nay, and why? After writing this, I think I've decided that the way it ought to be is that there is no blanket yes or no answer as there is with music, games, or film, and each case deserves to be tried on its own merit.
