**** BEGIN LOGGING AT Sun Jan 11 02:59:58 2015 Jan 11 03:04:29 there are 3D models of human body for tools like blender etc, so called dummies or dolls. They are sold commercially and have tough copyright. Howver any rendered scene from those models is your own and no (C) applies from original 3D model "though rendering" to the result of rendering Jan 11 03:06:18 I consider any except of a few lines of detail, any rendering of images etc, of the original 3D files as fair use not creating any copyright in the result Jan 11 03:06:35 excerpt* Jan 11 03:07:37 thus I actually can't see how >> CC-BY-SA is problematic for journal papers<< Jan 11 03:16:05 rather the usual academic attribution best practice applies, which would ask for mentioning the above said "Original CAD files (C) Openmoko Inc, used with permission. All derivative data files available at under CC-BY-CA" at bottom of the article Jan 11 03:18:18 the (C) for the article itself still stays with the original author Jan 11 03:34:20 well, if you "leaked" the file with a license you are not entiteled to give, that wouldn't actually render use of it any more legal -- people just wouldn't know that :-) Jan 11 03:34:35 I tend to agree though that CC-BY-SA should be good enough Jan 11 03:35:49 exactly :-) Jan 11 05:17:19 so Jan 11 05:17:54 which license is newton's law of motions published under Jan 11 09:36:50 starseeker: it appears as though his openmoko.com address would still work, try Sean Moss-Pultz Jan 11 15:50:58 antrik: it could be that CC-BY-SA is OK under a "Third-Party" type policy like http://www.acm.org/publications/third-party-material but even that is less clear than I would like - when discussing CC licenses, they just say "make sure that the licensing details match your intended use of that content". They call out the NC version as not being practical without additional permissions, but they don't address the "share-alike" Jan 11 15:54:46 that leaves it a bit "up in the air", as it were Jan 11 16:00:40 ah! thanks pabs3 - it seems I found an email that works for Sean Jan 11 16:04:07 DocScrutinizer05: it's actually a very interesting (well, legally interesting) point as to whether a rendering of a 3D model is independent of the copyright of the original 3D data - that's one of the points on which I am having trouble finding anything definite Jan 11 16:05:07 anyway, Sean responded, so stand by... Jan 11 16:32:59 DocScrutinizer05: as an aside, those schematics you linked are really cool. Are there any open source circuit simulators (ngspice, etc.) that can handle simulating that level of circuitry? Jan 11 16:43:27 when a rendering of a 3D model would be (C) of the 3D data owner, then a photo of the Eiffel tower would be (C) Eiffel Jan 11 18:58:20 starseeker: well, if they do not mention it explicitly, I'd assume it's not a problem in general :-) Jan 11 18:59:56 I for my part am rather confident that just using a model in a paper doesn't make the whole paper a derivative work. I'd say the SA in this case just means that you have to keep the CC license for the model itself, or modified models based on it Jan 11 19:00:54 same as including CC images in articles or shows for example -- citing the source and mentioning the license should be good enough Jan 11 19:02:20 starseeker: unless you actually know that SA is indeed a problem, I believe it would be preferable to keep it Jan 11 20:24:08 DocScrutinizer05: funny you should mention that example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel_Tower#Image_copyright_claims Jan 11 20:28:12 well, they construed a case where *the lighting* is artwork Jan 11 20:28:38 they did so since they couldn't protect the tower itself by copyright Jan 11 20:28:47 because of its age Jan 11 20:29:53 well, because of no other public building is protected by any copyright either, for taking photos of it Jan 11 20:30:14 that's typical french idiocy Jan 11 20:31:04 if they were not able to at least do this trick with the light "art", they had changed their copyright laws Jan 11 20:32:43 anyway pictures of the Tower are _not_ protected by any copyright, as are any other photos of publicly visible architecture, and even most art Jan 11 20:33:28 Eiffel tower is a "trademark", an icon Jan 11 20:34:20 they want to make money from all the little Eiffel tower models sold in Paris, as well as all the artwork people buy and decorate their living room with Jan 11 20:34:56 oh, no question. but it is one example that the issue can be bit tricky Jan 11 20:35:09 Openmoko 3D models are CC-BY-SA, not even -NC-SA Jan 11 20:35:37 right - that's why I said originally it might be OK, but I'm not sure Jan 11 20:36:21 it definitely is OK to share renderings, as long as you mention they were done from a OM dataset Jan 11 20:36:56 prolly not even mandatory, but politically correct Jan 11 20:37:18 * starseeker nods - even with public domain works, you *always* cite the original source Jan 11 20:37:40 not even public domain makes plagerism OK Jan 11 20:38:14 when you use the files in educational context, you can do with them whatever you like but you SHALL add the CC-BY-SA note Jan 11 20:39:14 and, where due, a "based on:" Jan 11 20:39:14 when you use derivative work Jan 11 20:39:43 DocScrutinizer05: probably the thing to do is for me to as the ACM directly if they consider the CC-BY-SA to be viral as far as the paper as a whole is concerned Jan 11 20:40:08 if not, there certainly isn't a problem with the image itself being so licensed Jan 11 20:40:16 CC-BY-SA only applies to the "photo" Jan 11 20:40:28 not to the whole paper Jan 11 20:41:57 if it would apply to anything. See above reasoning why *I* think renderings are not a derivative work, but a own distinct result from using the original work Jan 11 20:42:19 and thus no CC-BY-SA applies even to the photo Jan 11 20:43:09 http://www.photoattorney.com/update-on-lawsuit-against-photographer-for-photo-of-sculpture/ Jan 11 20:56:37 DocScrutinizer05: I'm not sure of either the argument that "CC-BY-SA doesn't extend to the whole paper" or the photograph not being a derivative work (at least, under US law) - I wish I could be Jan 11 20:57:16 with this approach I tell you that you better stop typing any char on your keyboard Jan 11 20:57:22 heh Jan 11 20:57:35 somebody somewhere might claim a copyright on e.g. @ Jan 11 20:58:41 * starseeker nods - I'm honesty not trying to be annoying - just explaining my concerns and motivations for the CC-BY question. I'm totally fine if the decision is not to go that route - then it's up to me to determine if CC-BY-SA is OK in my particular siutation Jan 11 20:58:50 anyway, for me the topic is discussed at finish Jan 11 20:59:06 * starseeker nods - thank you for taking the time to hash it out Jan 11 20:59:12 very much appreciated Jan 11 21:01:55 each university and each publishing house has a lawyer or expert for such questions. Maybe contact them in case you're in doubt about anything Jan 11 21:02:39 you're not the first one to use photos of products in a test report Jan 11 21:03:23 * starseeker nods. as an open source software developer, I tend to be hyper sensitive about license issues - I've seen too many situations where people not taking care up front caused grief down the road Jan 11 21:03:28 and not the first one to refer, quote, or use as backup material or tool some public domain or GPL or CC stuff Jan 11 21:04:54 * starseeker nods - but there have been a few situations where I've seen open source stuff carve new channels in legal reasoning - 3D printing is probably going to do the same thing Jan 11 21:05:08 actually, 3D printing will probably be much bigger Jan 11 21:05:41 my experience regarding that is: you need to limit your concerns to a reasonable amount, since otherwise you never will get anything done. When you hire 100 lawyers, their answer will be "we *think* it is like X, but it *might* also be the opposite" and then they suggest to hire 2000 lawyers instead, to get more certain results Jan 11 21:06:09 * starseeker grins - defintely the voice of experience Jan 11 21:07:25 in this case there was the *possibility* of switching the license, which is (usually) a simple and quick inquiry that has the potential to make things simple. Hence, it's my first step. Otherwise, you're quite right Jan 11 21:07:31 in the end it boils down to a risk estimation. And I can help you with that: the risk you get sued by OM is *absolutely zilch* Jan 11 21:07:48 * starseeker nods - thank you for that Jan 11 21:33:08 DocScrutinizer05: well, we don't know who took over the copyrights when OM went out of business. might be some letigious bastard just waiting for a chance to sue someone ;-) Jan 11 23:16:08 I think Sean will tell Jan 11 23:17:16 and I don't think any OM copyright went to anybody else, I'm quite sure it's all still with OM and OM in possession of Sean Jan 11 23:17:50 Sher won't be interested in such stuff Jan 12 00:41:21 starseeker: I notice you sent a mail to Sean and me. Did Sean already answer? And if yes, what? **** ENDING LOGGING AT Mon Jan 12 02:59:59 2015