photogrammetry rights?
polycounter lvl 7
Hey all, Just a quick little off-my-head post. I've been looking into photogrammetry as something I might take up so that I am not at my desk 24/7. I was curious about one thing... Copyright 
I see a lot of people redistributing models after photogrammetry and cleanup, but at what point is it okay and at what point is it not. It seems like its still a very grey area? Has there been any documentation or legalities established in this area in regards for 3D models?
IE I get that redistributing a Gundam model you scanned is probably a bad idea, but what about those lesser known designs that do have copyright on them but you would probably never get in trouble unless you were actually creating the item in competition.. (IE Household appliances)
Other questionable things such as cars are concerning as well.. Because well profitable cars are pretty darn distinct. Though I guess I haven't looked into why there's so many things titled mustang in 3D stores without there being issues...
Anyway, Just something I'm curious about and wanted to see if anyone had some information. I can't seem to find much on my own about it (Unless its buried under all this drone-flight laws regarding UAV etc...).
I see a lot of people redistributing models after photogrammetry and cleanup, but at what point is it okay and at what point is it not. It seems like its still a very grey area? Has there been any documentation or legalities established in this area in regards for 3D models?
IE I get that redistributing a Gundam model you scanned is probably a bad idea, but what about those lesser known designs that do have copyright on them but you would probably never get in trouble unless you were actually creating the item in competition.. (IE Household appliances)
Other questionable things such as cars are concerning as well.. Because well profitable cars are pretty darn distinct. Though I guess I haven't looked into why there's so many things titled mustang in 3D stores without there being issues...
Anyway, Just something I'm curious about and wanted to see if anyone had some information. I can't seem to find much on my own about it (Unless its buried under all this drone-flight laws regarding UAV etc...).
Replies
Usually if you have to stop to think about it or come up with a creative justification as to why its ok, the awnser is don’t do it.
Usually most sites that distribute models either for free or paid, have an assortment of licenses you can use when you upload your model.
They also do specify that you have the rights to what you've created and they are simply the host.
They provide an option to address any copyright/ownership issues others may have with your upload.
It also depends on the scope of your operation. I know this one hobby supplier that downloads 3D scans of garage kits (all made without permission, but then the garage kits are a grey area)
He then paints them and sells them for profit off his own site.
Unlikely that the owner of the original will come after him unless it was a massive operation and really cut into their sales.
Also real world appliances have copyrighted designs, but this may be to prevent real world duplicates.
If you're scanning say a blender and putting it in a game engine environment as an asset, I don't believe the design license extends to the virtual world in every case.
Many appliances are just far too old to account for this possibility.
I've never heard of a car company going after anyone selling a 3D game ready model online. Especially if you're a freelancer, you're mostly going to use the scan as a base and retopo, so there is little to nothing of the scan that you're selling.
If you printed out a car and then try to sell it to someone and got them killed because of bootleg quality, that might cause trouble.
So I'd say if you're going for it, good to check the license, but for relatively common clutter I don't think copyright should be a problem.
On a lighter note,
"I sometimes worry about my neighbour coming after me cause of that potted plant I photo scanned. She made the pot custom but most of it was covered by leaves so I think I'm fine."
"I also scanned myself and was wearing pants and hoodie from GAP. So far they haven't come after me!
My shoes were bootleg from Thailand so if I had to get into trouble for that should have happened at the airport." o_O
So just standard copyright stuff that I know seems to apply, which is fine but I do have a bit more specific example as a follow up;
What about public displays such as statues in parks. When an artists creates something like that, isn't it their copy right by default, so why should photogrammers be allowed to redistribute such statues in 3D form without permissions/ rights. I don't think having things on display publicly relinquishes rights in that case? (And maybe some are checking with the artists to confirm that they can do this, but this is another area that interests me.. Because scanning statues seems like a lot of fun LOL)
I use statues in parks as the example because this is also something I've seen already, and I figure that while museums have publicly displayed statues as well, I feel that if you scan in and try to redistribute MIchelangelos David for $50 you might get in a bit of trouble XD
I guess this has become a more 3D copyright question, because while it pertains to photogrammatry I suppose 3D artist could replicate anything as well..
If they do then it would be easy to see the copyright restrictions on site.
For example, Toronto owns the manhole cover outside my apartment with some embossed artwork. If I walk up and take a pic of it to use as a texture, unlikely that the city will come after me.
You'd have to be able to judge the scope of what you're doing to confirm whether you'd get in trouble.
Usually if its under the purview of a much larger entity, like a AAA game studio producing/commissioning/outsourcing scan work of some famous art piece, that's a better target for lawyers.
Like in Ubisoft Watchdog's recreation of Chicago, the famous Cloud Gate sculpture has been replaced by well, something quite different. Imagine if they added it without proper copyright.
It probably cost them too much to get the actual sculpture in game, maybe the artist would want a cut out of every game sold just to have the piece in the game.
Its too significant for them to get away with it.
A model of a Chicago police car with logo, not so much. Same for any designs of street lights, general buildings, park bench etc.
In fact they did away with so much of what makes Chicago unique.
Ultimately it really comes down to how much you'd potentially make in revenue and if you're treading on someones turf, meaning someone who actually has a licence to do what your're doing without a license.
I think Michaelangelo's work and other older artists, is public domain. Of course if you sell it with some museum endorsement which you don't have that might be a problem.
Like we have this fascinating action figure,
http://images.goodsmile.info/cgm/images/product/20151026/5294/36065/large/fff218d84ac0c1f73afc6c5079116f66.jpg
I doubt they needed a license for the likeness, atleast it doesn't show on the site.
http://www.goodsmile.info/en/product/5294/figma+Davide+di+Michelangelo.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/24/florence-court-puts-foot-down-over-michelangelos-david
If you're caught, a copyright holder has every right to sue you for damages, not just lost income. Of course you may not get caught. It's up to you about the amount of risk you're willing to take.
https://morrisonlee.com/a-laymans-guide-to-copyright-fair-use-and-the-dmca-takedown-system/
dont get it twisted though, a screenshot of almost every single prop, or asset along with the reference image it was inspired by was sent through legal for final approval. Game companies are pretty hardcore about covering their ass when it comes the legalities to copyright.
going at things with the mindset of being so small time no one is going to go after you or you won't get caught it just slowly building a jenga tower over the long term. its just a scarcity based mindset of having to scam or avoid getting caught, which puts you on a losing path from the outset.
just come up with your own cool shit, or collab with someone who has good design sense/taste and share the profits. #2cents
https://fieldofdivision.com/2016/08/27/bmw-dismisses-design-patent-lawsuit-against-turbosquid/
Too bad, because whatever the outcome of that could have at least set some precedent. What BMW mostly listed in the suit was the use of their logos without permission.
Further write up. https://patentlyo.com/patent/2016/06/digital-trademark-infringement.html
Thank you all for your feedback ^.^ I appreciate it! Even though this topic has been revisited a million time ahaha :P