What a wonderfully thought-provoking question!
As far as I'm aware, the answer is that copyright is dependent on the nature of the original and the nature of the "copy".
Take an object - any object, from a hair-brush to a battleship. It exists in the real world. It and it's physical components are protected from unauthorised copying by the law of patents - a form of copyright. So, you can't just come along and make a copy of the object with which to brush your hair, or sail the ocean without seeking permission ( and usually paying for a license for the privilege of doing so.) That is you are forbidden by the law of patent from duplicating the actual object, or any of its patented components as they exist in the real world in their original form.
If you make a plastic version of a wooden hair-brush and use synthetic bristles rather than natural ones, whether you are in breach of the patent which applies to the original brush will depend on the size, style and "look" of your version. Patent applies to function and design.
BUT, it is perfectly legal to make a drawing, or paint a picture, or take a photograph, or create an image of the object. That image etc. immediately becomes your copyright. You don't impinge upon the patent / copyright associated with the actual object, because you can't brush your hair with a drawing, or picture. Your copyright only applies to the picture / image / photograph of it, not to the object your image represents.
An exception to this is trademarks and logos etc. They are regarded as images and are subject to copyright. So, while you are at liberty to draw, paint and photograph the hair-brush; if it was a promotional object which advertises Coca Cola on its back, you would need to get the Coca Cola Company's permission before using, or distributing your image.
It's nothing to do with the actual hair-brush, but the Coca Cola logo is their copyright and may not be reproduced, or used without their permission. To avoid everyone who takes a holiday snapshot which includes a logo, or trademark from having to seek permission, the law usually allows the making of such images for "private use" But, if the person tries to distribute, or sell his, or her image of the logo, he, or she should seek the permission of the copyright holder. ( This raises an interesting question about merchant ships' liveries in games such as Silent Hunter. They were subject to copyright.)
That apart, EA, Ubisoft etc. are perfectly at liberty to use models of ships etc. which exist(ed) in real life in their games. Since they are not making a copy of the actual object as it exists / existed in the real world - i.e. it's an image, not a copy of the real thing, they cannot be in breach of patent. But, in turn, they do hold copyright on the image they create.
So, in this present instance, strictly-speaking under copyright law, because his version would use the same medium - computer graphics - and would be used for an identical purpose to the original - a model in a computer game - Miner 1436, would need permission to adapt, or transfer EA's model, or image into Silent Hunter. However, he is perfectly at liberty to create from scratch a brand new image, or model of the same vessel ( for which he would then hold the copyright).
Thanks for a stimulating intellectual work-out.
Easy on the garlic, but lots of chillies ..........and anchovies and capers?
|