The Chip Board
Custom Search
   


No copyright!

Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).
Exact photographic reproductions of public-domain paintings lacked sufficient originality for a new copyright, despite the technical skill required. This concerned reproductions of two-dimensional artwork, not every photograph of a physical object. Read the decision
Meshwerks, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., 528 F.3d 1258 (10th Cir. 2008).
Faithful digital wireframe models of Toyota vehicles lacked copyrightable originality because they added no original expression to the vehicles’ designs. This is particularly relevant to digital copying of three-dimensional objects. Read the decision
The Copyright Office states the scanning rule explicitly in its Compendium, §909.3(A):
“merely scanning and digitizing existing works does not contain a sufficient amount of creativity to warrant copyright protection.”

Messages In This Thread

PokerChipper, the CCA, and Why I Keep Asking
Thanks. That goes to prove no news is good news
Re: PokerChipper, the CCA, and Why I Keep Asking
I can tell you where they came from
Re: I can tell you where they came from
Did you want to sniff my
Objection to this post
This has you written all over it!
Wrong, whoever you are
Re: PokerChipper, the CCA, and Why I Keep Asking
No copyright!
And to the scumbag
Scumbag defined for our offshore viewers.

Copyright 2022 David Spragg