Prop Wars: Can Paramount Prevent People From Offering Up Plans To 3D Print Movie Props?
from the freedom-to-build dept
It wasn't difficult to predict that this was coming. Late last year, we noted that it was only a matter of time until certain industries started to freak out about 3D printing, and how it would allow people to print physical items that others would claim "infringed" on original works. And, it shouldn't be much of a surprise that it's the entertainment industry that is the first to freak out. We had already noted that Gene Roddenberry's son was claiming that anyone who did a 3D printing of a Star Trek prop was infringing his rights (kinda ironic, given the nature of the Replicator device in the Star Trek universe...).However, Paramount Pictures, a subsidiary of Viacom, has taken this even further. The studio apparently sent a cease-and-desist to Todd Blatt, a mechanical engineer, who has been making 3D printable models of various movie props, sending them off to the popular 3D printing service Shapeways, and offering up the products. In this case, Paramount freaked out that he was offering a 3D printed version of the weird cube-like figure in the movie Super 8.
Obviously, the creator of such a product might run into trouble depending on how the technology is packaged. "Bring home a character from Transformers" might imply a false endorsement. "Look like Angelina Jolie" might constitute a violation of the actress' publicity rights. But copyright? Is a physical re-creation of an object on-screen a derivative?It definitely seems like a stretch, but if the entertainment industry is good at anything these days, it's stretching the meaning of copyright laws. While nothing more is likely to happen in this case, you can rest assured that this issue isn't going away, and there will almost certainly be court cases in the near future.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 3d printing, copyright, infringement, super 8
Companies: paramount
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright
Now if they *trademarked* it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[Spoiler Alert!]
Can Paramount Prevent People From Offering Up Movies For Downloading Over The Internet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: [Spoiler Alert!]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It doesn't surprise me that the studio would put a stop to this if they've already negotiated a (presumably) exclusive license with a manufacturer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There is a provision that, 35 years after the transfer of a copyright, or his heirs I think, can get the copyright back.
The time frame doesn't have anything to do with the death of the original author, except that if the author is dead, it's not him/her but his/her heirs that can bet it back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What did they pay for?
What did Paramount pay for that this 3D printer doesn't already have?
The schematics for the Printer are freely available on the internet.
The plastic mold was bought by the hobbyist to be shaped into a new form.
And I'm fairly positive Paramount didn't pay for the $500-%1000 3D printer.
So they have no case.
So why is it that people can be harried for a copyright issue when all this really is, is a reallocation of scarce goods, NOT BOUGHT by Paramount?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What did they pay for?
This is because most people have no understanding, let alone inclination to know, what is and what isn't lawful under IP Legislations. Also Organisations like Paramount et.al have a vested interest in keeping this apathy alive by misinformation, duress, fear and other social engineering factors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Name of 3D Printing Machine is ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Name of 3D Printing Machine is ?
I myself have a reprap that I made for under 500$ and then printed out one more reprap using it for a friend for 200$
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Name of 3D Printing Machine is ?
http://www.makerbot.com/blog/2011/06/09/bre-on-the-colbert-report
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Name of 3D Printing Machine is ?
stupid touchscreen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Name of 3D Printing Machine is ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Name of 3D Printing Machine is ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Name of 3D Printing Machine is ?
For building, it can take some time depending on your skill level and the printer you choose to make. There are several variations already, from wooden ones to classic Darwin mods. I work full time, so working on the machine for an hour every day and over the weekends took me a few months. But mostly do to waiting for the suppliers I used all the way from Norway to deliver my parts.
The soldering was easy school grade stuff for most of it, for me at least.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Name of 3D Printing Machine is ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Name of 3D Printing Machine is ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Tell that to the next sculptor you meet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
> information, is non-functional
Well, if you've seen the movie, you'd know it pretty much has to be non-functional, because it's functionality is light-years beyond the current state of human technology. ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Arguably, this design from the movie exhibits some original authorship that is protectable by copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dude
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey! here's a version under a PD licence
http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:9744
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Goes to show: whenever someone says "it's not about the money," it's about the money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
At best, you could call Lucas the designer...except I highly doubt he was the one who created the design.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sure, 3D objects can be copyrighted...
Not sure why using a 3D printer, rather than a plaster mold, would be any different, and not sure why it makes a difference that the object is a movie prop (assuming it otherwise meets the criteria for copyright protection), rather than a half-naked chick with no arms.
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gee Mike, I thought you already knew that every time something was replicated, a fee was automatically paid to the copyright holder. That's the way that everything is going, so Gene was far ahead of his time to call that one. I mean, someone had to "create" the design for that pork chop.
(For those who can't afford a sarcasm detection device, because DH's license fees are so damn steep, the above statement was, in fact, only sarcasm.
Oh and by "create", I mean the laborious work of flopping an actual pork chop into a molecular scanner. Obviously the distinctive flavor of that particular pork chop is a true work of art that should be protected forever by perpetual copyright.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Replicators = Terrorism (or something else that's bad)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why do they go to war with their customers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]