By Daniel Kreuter.
Daniel writes:
This is a blend I made some months ago… but I still think someone could use it.
It’s just a model without materials but feel free to apply some.Sorry for the wrong normals in the p3d preview :)
Link
You're blocking ads, which pay for BlenderNation. Read about other ways to support us.
About the Author
Bart Veldhuizen
I have a LONG history with Blender - I wrote some of the earliest Blender tutorials, worked for Not a Number and helped run the crowdfunding campaign that open sourced Blender (the first one on the internet!). I founded BlenderNation in 2006 and have been editing it every single day since then ;-) I also run the Blender Artists forum and I'm Head of Community at Sketchfab.
25 Comments
Hi Bart and Blenderheads!
Blendswap has great resources, but some of them, as in this case, need some finishing, like rigging, texturing, etc.
I think I will be great if we could have some volunteer system to complete great models that need to be finishing.
Another interesting idea, (Following the idea of most downloaded in Blendswap) will be to have a community place in blendswap, when the most required/desired models, so community can create/enhance/complete/finish the most desired models.
Anyhow, this thread should be in Blendswap, :-), but anyhow just let me know what do you think
Thanks,
LC
Searching most downloaded, I see they are mostly human characters!
http://www.blendswap.com/?mostdown=true
Hi guys. Working at Cat, I know 1 thing. We guard the use of our trade dress on any item (clothes, shoes, signs...etc)....and anything else for that matter rigidly. As much as I like the model and hate to rain on the parade of everyone hoping to put materials and badging on it...you may want to use something other than Cat.
Nah, that's understandable. Just forces us to be even more creative, Thanks for the heads-up!
I promise not to wear that bulldozer, if that can satisfy your bosses.
Modeling it is no different than drawing it or photographing it: there is not much that CAT can do about it. It is fair use.
His remark wasn't about the model - it was about logo usage. And that *is* protected.
I know and I was answering just that: that 'protection' isn't universal and doesn't extend, in most cases, to the uses that there are for the present model, textured or not.
Actually, the model alone, being unequivocally a CAT, could become the source of problems, even without any logo on it. In the matters of satire, societal comment, education, for hobby and in a number of others cases, CAT it putting its face out for the world to see and can't complaint if it is seen and what is seen is communicated.
Otherwise CAT could do an image search on Google and then sue for eternity.
Ah sorry, my bad.
Nice model, dude! You the man, Daniel! :D
nice model.. thanks for sharing!
regarding the comment about trademark, don't you think you're being a bit ridiculous making such a comment? No one is making any money off this model, no one is misrepresenting the product which is the point isn't it. Are you going to tell me when I do a painting of a construction site I can't paint the logo of what I see?
I'm not a lawyer, but don't forget that Cat has a right to control how their company is portrayed (to a point - they have no (or at most very limited) legal right to control news and satire of their company). If someone were to download this model, texture it with authentic Cat logos, and create a scene of the bulldozer leveling a school with kids in it, Cat would have legitimate cause to take legal action to prevent distribution of that image, lest they become unfairly associated with killing children. And it's not inconceivable that someone could make money off this model (for example, using it with a 3D printer to create an sell bulldozer toys). As I understand it, they also must pursue action against even seemingly innocuous uses of their copyrighted IP in order to maintain control of it in less benign situations. Turning a blind eye in some cases could actually hurt their legal standing in others.
In short, I don't think Svcam04 is being ridiculous with his statement (though I can't speak for the American legal system as a whole). Cat certainly has the right to say that not just anybody can put Cat's logo on this model. Heck, they may even have cause to control the model itself, if it's distinctively a Cat bulldozer as opposed to a "generic" bulldozer. I'm not saying they will, or that it would be right if they did, but it could very well be legal.
That said, let me add that I agree that it's an amazing model, and I do thank Daniel for his effort in making this and his willingness to distribute it.
Like other comments said, it would be likely just fine, under the concept of fair use.
Thinking about it, pictures are totally cool because they are as-is representation.
However, paintings, models, etc, may have inaccuracies that can misrepresent products.
Also, [US] courts will doubt a company's right to a trademark, if their brand is "genericized". If they don't actively pursue infractions, they might lose their trademark.
Got this from reddit where there are talks about how apple is an asshole for pursuing a school with an almost similar logo.
Turns out companies have to actively pursue, or else lose their trademark. I'm too lazy to dig for citations, though.
So, at the end of line, are we allowed to model PSPs, iPhones, branded cars, etc. etc. (and to diffuse our model of course)?
Forgive me if i'm wrong bit it looks like we're getting right into the ACTA/SOPA/PIPA discussion here.
In the past, I have sued companies using my logo and trademark, and I have lost due to very subtle differences between involved works.
Infringement of trademarks and copyrights are only effective if you make objects of very same nature. You can't build a real machine doing the same thing as the original one with the same aspect and logo, you can't even build a scale model of it. Original drawings of the machine are protected, but only to protect against copying the machine itself.
3D virtual models are intermediary object dedicated to create artworks. Artworks are not of same nature as machines, and are considered as original works belonging to the artist making them. It is the same for photos. Otherwise, all images displayed in books, movies, billboards, magazines would have to be totally blurred, as almost everything (cars, architecture, shops signs...) except the sky has been built by someone potentially owning the rights on his work!
There are some exceptions for some big unique monuments or pieces of architecture, because they are actually considered as artworks : For example, you need to buy some rights if you want to sell a photo of the Eiffel tower at night with illuminations, because the lighting is protected as an artwork. But these cases are rather rare. Vehicles made in huge quantities are not considered as artworks.
I'd want to add that showing accurate models of vehicles in images or movies, if you don't show them in a bad context may be considered as free advertizing and is generaly rather a good thing for the company who makes the real vehicle.
One thing that could be considered as a copyright infringement would be to show in an artwork an accurate model WITHOUT the logo of the original builder of the vehicle, because it could be seen like the artist pretends that he has invented the vehicle ! Representing the vehicle accurately with its logo is a proof of respect of the moral rights of the original creator of the model.
Hey, dude, I'm not sure that's legally sound. lol
Come on, if you are intentionally making a model of someone else copyrighted item, and make money from it this is illegal.
Except bulldozer is not copyrighted. Sad to see that all these copyright nonsense scratched so deeply in heads of the people. Bulldozer is a utilitarian object, so it's a "useful article", and not copyrighted as such. Read http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl103.html -- "Examples are clothing; automobile bodies; furniture; machinery, including household appliances; dinnerware; and lighting fixtures. An article that is part of a useful article, such as an ornamental wheel cover on a vehicle, can itself be a useful article."
A 3D model is not a car. There are many companies selling realistic 3D models of any kinds of existing vehicles, like Dosch Design, Cornucopia3d, Turbosquid and else... These models are not stolen from the R&D department of vehicles constructors. They are modelled by hand by talented 3D artists and have the status of original artwork. Don't tell me that all these companies are outlaw !
The only right of the constructor of these vehicle is about the final use of images if they show the vehicles in a way that could give a bad image, at detriment of the car company. There is a disclaimer/warning notice on Dosch site about that.
So, when the makers of the Transformers movies came and asked Cat if they could use their vehicles in the movie (CG vehicles mind you)...you are telling me that the Producers of the movie didn't need to because the models were 3D and therefore art..I don't think you are accurate. Simply telling people to think before they do something wasn't intended to cause an uproar. Sorry if I caused a stir.
Well it's not quite the same thing as in transformers where they blow everything that moves and doesn't move to a thousand pieces. Blowing up a cat bulldozer is probably going to give a bad image according to them at least.
I think that Philippe has has answered the question. Clearly enough, at least for me.
@svcam04 i'm pretty sure the original modeller did put alot of thought into what he was doing. such well crafted models are not created through incompetence and lack of consideration. however, maybe you could have put more thought into your original and follow-up comments that seem to tackle a subject that is best left to be dealt with by those that are more knowlegdable about copyrighting.