That was a Patent issue. Polaroid had some very general patents. DagT
Den 14. jul. 2006 kl. 19.07 skrev William Robb: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "graywolf" > Subject: Re: A weird little story of Copyright > > > That gets into some strange territory. Copyright in most countries > protects your image (the photo) from commercial use by others. The > painting is clearly a derivative work. In some countries derivative > works are not allow without permission, in others they are. Even the > courts do not seem to understand the copyright laws. It is clear that > copyright (USA) does not protect ideas, only the results of the ideas, > but in some cases the courts have ruled as if the idea is protected. I > have no idea what the specific laws say in your country. > > Interstingly, and a bit closer to home, Eastman Kodak managed to > run afoul > of Polaroid's instant print process, not because they copied the > technology > (they didn't), but because the court agreed that Polaroid had claim > on the > instant print concept. > It cost Kodak close to a billion dollars in late 1980's US currency. > > William Robb > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
