On 5/21/06, Daniel Kinzler <daniel(a)brightbyte.de> wrote:
I still
don't see why a car or an I-pod is any less copyrightable than
an action figure. A generic computer, perhaps, because its look is
purely functional. But even then, I'm sure the design of the I-mac is
copyrighted - a lot of creative work went into making the I-mac *look
good*.
The reason is the concept of "character copyright". Google for it. On a
first glance, I found this to be interesting:
http://www.ivanhoffman.com/jointauthors.html (about half way down).
Regards
-- Daniel
Yes, characters are copyrighted. But that doesn't say that a car or
an I-pod isn't. In the case of cars:
"Copyright law is an additional, but less commonly used, legal
protection for automobile designs. The application of copyright law is
via a specific category of sculptural works, recognized as being
protected in their three-dimensional form. Copyright protection arises
when (1) a specific feature of the design is original - that is,
possessing more than a mere quantum of creativity in its design, and
(2) that specific feature exists separate and apart from the feature's
functional aspect."
http://www.metrocorpcounsel.com/current.php?artType=view&artMonth=June&…
The same would be true of the Ipod - functional aspects of the design
would not be copyrightable, but creative asaesthetic aspects of the
design would (though I doubt I can find a link specifically describing
this in terms of the Ipod).
Anthony