Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider
did you see SouthPark and their treatment of Mickey Mouse (And boybands), Galway? ... it was hoot.
(I didn't mean a image couldn't be copyrighted, I meant that to draw an image of a real object doesn't infringe copyright)
|
Generally under US law images of utilitarian items like a fork or coffee mug do not attract copyright but images of sculptures, frescos, paintings, cartoon characters and other "artwork" does.
Yes, commonsense says an aircraft is a utilitarian item rather than artwork and attracts no copyright but apparently that is not how American courts interpret the matter.
I do not agree with it just stating how it works in the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider
I've always felt there was something more to it than just a call of "copyright issue", considering how come on down real quick all discussion was at the other place
|
The gossip was that part of the out of court settlement was UBI not discuss the issue. In addition UBI are often portrayed as one of the bad guys in this story which may partly explain their aversion to allowing discussion.
EDIT: I would also add we are not talking sketches here. Consider the difference between a 95% scale flyable copy of an aircraft; versus a smaller flyable scale model; versus a static plastic model; versus a functional 3D computer simulation ... all of the same aircraft. Lawyers would have a field day arguing over those distinctions. Commonsense is irrelevant where the law is concerned. Even should Grumman be wrong it would need to be appealed to the US supreme court before you had the authority to set down a precedent.