On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Adam Bolte <[email protected]>wrote:
> > No it's not - or at least it certainly isn't always the case. > > > http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/13/07/23/0115242/copyright-drama-reaches-3d-printing-world > > Reading through the discussion there, the general consensus seems to > be that the copyright of 3D designs do not extend to the use of > 3D-printed objects. > I wouldn't be so sure about it, Adam, it's not like the "crowd wisdom" can't be wrong (it's only 5 years or so since tens of millions on this planet was convinced that "the price of houses never go down"). To give you some examples for my reserved position: 1. the "sheet music" is still music and the *interpretation* of that music still be subject to the copyright laws, especially if played in public 2. there exists things stranger than you think is this words. E.g. the Millau Viaduct was copyrighed *as design* by the architect (Lord Norman Foster) and still is. His lordship chose to grant *the management* of the intellectual property rights to the company that operates/maintains it<http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=26524091>. Now, you either use a browser with the Flash Payer installed, navigate to http://www.leviaducdemillau.com/en_index.php and, bottom of the page pick "Legale notice" to read it yourself, or you believe me when I'm saying that *this company is the sole legal entity that can grant the right for the use of the pictures of that bridge*. Adrian _______________________________________________ Free-software-melb mailing list [email protected] http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb Free Software Melbourne home page: http://www.freesoftware.asn.au/melb/
