copyright and three-dimensional artistic work
Jayne....@gmail.com
work industrially. In such a case, it is necessary to register the
design if protection is required."
I'm not sure I understand how copyright is lost if the owner applies a
"three-dimensional artistic work industrially" - can anyone help me
understand what a three-dimensional artistic work is that waives
copyright?
Any suggestions or perhaps books or links that discusses this in simple
terms for lay people would be very useful.
Thank you.
Jay.
Arnoud Engelfriet
> "Copyright is lost if the owner applies a three-dimensional artistic
> work industrially. In such a case, it is necessary to register the
> design if protection is required."
Where did you get that statement from?
There certainly are cases where industrial design right/design patent
protection and copyright protection merge for a single object.
But Berne clearly provides 25 years of copyright protection at
least for such an object (art. 7(4) Berne).
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/1500_1512.htm
says: "an ornamental design may be copyrighted as a work of art and may
also be subject matter of a design patent. The author/inventor may not
be required to elect between securing a copyright or a design patent."
A good introduction to the subject is
http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/ObjectID/7AD0C50E-F37C-457A-AD8924A9CFD728F3/catID/5DD3BD40-C970-45AC-BF68DC9BA717AFDB/310/238/181/ART/
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
PatentBoy
This may relate to UK copyright law. (It's a big problem using Google
for legal advice, please check the territory the author had in mind.)
If it is the UK, then it could relate to two different points:
(IN RETROSPECT NO 2 IS MUCH MORE LIKELY)
1. Section 52 of the Copyright, Designs & Patents act 1988 states that
if an artistic work has been exploited by making articles by an
indutsrial process and those articles are marketed, then the term of
protection of the copyright is reduced.
"Industrial process" relates to making more than 50 articles. (Between
25 and 50, I seem to recall it comes down to the circumstances.)
The term of protection is reduced to 25 years from the end of the
calendar in year in which the articles were first marketed.
This explains the "industrially" bit.
2. Paraphrasing section 51, it is not an infringement of copyright in a
design document to make an article to that design, unless the article
produced is an artistic work.
This is a difficult one to explain just by talking about the text.
The best way to explain it is to give the reasoning behind the law.
Years ago British Leyland designed some car exhausts. They had produced
a design doc showing this exhaust pipe.
Someone started selling spare exhaust pipes. British Leyland asserted
that the new spare exhaust pipes infringed the copyright in the design
doc! This would have been extremely lucrative for British Leyland. It
would have given them a monopoly on spare parts for all their cars.
(and so they lost the case)
The problem could be stated to be that industrial designs had gained
the protection of artistic works.
As an comparable case, someone started to sell "Popeye" dolls based on
the cartoon. The owners of the copyright in the cartoon asserted that
it had been infringed and there was a finding in the owners favour.
The statute writers when drafting the new copyright law tried to
separate these scenarios.
So the distinction they try to draw is that the object produced by
copying the design must be an artistic work itself if it is to infringe
the copyright in the design document. So the Popeye doll could be
treated as an artistic work, while an exhaust pipe could not.
To protect the exhaust pipe, one could apply for a registered design.
It should be noted that design rights automatically exist. If you have
a particular problem in mind, let me know and I'll point out an expert
in your area of the country.
All the best
Glen