Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

•  

  

  musically_ut (profile), Dec 14th, 2010 @ 4:37am

  
  

  They had hit rock bottom

  ... and now they are feverishly digging to go even deeper.

  Literally.

  ~ musically_ut

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Jason, Dec 14th, 2010 @ 8:49am

  
  

  Re: They had hit rock bottom

  No, with all this piracy there's no incentive for dinosaurs anymore.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  harbingerofdoom (profile), Dec 14th, 2010 @ 9:13am

  
  

  Re: Re: They had hit rock bottom

  the horror!
  think of it.... all these fossilized dinosaurs will be out of work if we dont do something about protecting their intellectual property rights... why the entire museum industry could be dragged down by this... imagine it, no one will be making any history anymore!!!

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  abc gum, Dec 14th, 2010 @ 4:42am

  
  

  Clearly, the Black Hills Institute of Geological Research is guilty of making available.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  interval (profile), Dec 14th, 2010 @ 8:05am

  
  

  Re:

  In this age of 3d printers I wonder if we'll start seeing DMCA take-downs for sites sharing form files that describe how to print copies of things to those printers.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Dec 14th, 2010 @ 4:43am

  
  

  Dinosaurs suing over dinosaurs.
  
  I wonder if they've sued the T-rex species for infringement yet.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  John Duncan Yoyo, Dec 14th, 2010 @ 5:00am

  
  

  So they are suing for copying a copy. I don't doubt that this will be challenged by the RIAA. They sure wouldn't want this precedent out there.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Dec 14th, 2010 @ 5:12am

  
  

  You pirate scum killed the dinsaurs!

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Dec 14th, 2010 @ 5:16am

  
  

  Home casting is killed the dinosaurs, and it's illegal.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  DS, Dec 14th, 2010 @ 5:16am

  
  

  If you make a casting of the 'counterfit' bones, would that be OK? :)

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Timothy Larson, Dec 7th, 2011 @ 3:03pm

  
  

  Re:

  No, you are copying a sculpture then.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  LumpyDog (profile), Dec 14th, 2010 @ 5:18am

  
  

  Be sure to tip your waitress.

  You must have dug deep to come up with this story. I mean, it's certainly old news. Ancient, even.
  
  Thank you, I'll be here all week.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  pegr, Dec 14th, 2010 @ 5:39am

  
  

  Not a creative expression

  Nope, no copyright here. It's not a creative expression. Nor is it a creative impression.
  
  ;)

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  tebee (profile), Dec 14th, 2010 @ 5:54am

  
  

  Hasn't the copyright expired yet?

  Since when did the copyright term become death plus 65 million years?
  
  Seriously though, I thought you couldn't copyright a 3-d object unless it is contains some original artistic elements , like a sculpture or a building.
  
  A casting is a copy in itself, there's nothing original about it, it may need some technical skill to make a good copy but I did not think that was copywritable.(is that a word?)

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Dec 14th, 2010 @ 6:16am

  
  

  Prior art

  Didn't mother nature take the first casting of that bone? That's how fossils are made.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Ted E. Bear, Dec 14th, 2010 @ 6:34am

  
  

  You don't know the half of it...

  Dig a little deeper into the entire story of Sue the T Rex and you would see that this is just par the course. As a teaser....How about an arrest and conviction because a large sum of money passed through an Indian reservation and the couriers didnt report to the gov't that they were taking a large sum of money out of the country lol

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Timothy Larson (profile), Dec 7th, 2011 @ 3:08pm

  
  

  Re: You don't know the half of it... and you certainly don't

  Research this, there was never an arrest made! I don't even need to comment on the rest because your first statement is a falacy.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  The Groove Tiger (profile), Dec 14th, 2010 @ 6:39am

  
  

  Copying dinosaur bodies with an unauthorized cast is exactly like stealing the Flintmobile!

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  NullOp, Dec 14th, 2010 @ 6:53am

  
  

  No, no, no...

  Only God can copyright dinosaur bones!

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  SmartAss, Dec 14th, 2010 @ 6:56am

  
  

  Dem Bones

  Clearly the casts are a derivative work and can not be copyrighted!

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Nick, Dec 14th, 2010 @ 7:28am

  
  

  Amazing

  If this wasn't really happening, I'd say this is the greatest hypothetical for copyright lawyers.
  
  It does sound absurd that anyone could copyright dinosaur bones. However, they are in the public domain, just like Mozart's music. Obviously, I could play any of Mozart's songs, record it, and copyright my recording. Though I don't get to own Mozart's song (anyone else could record the same song) I do get to stop people from using my particular version of it. Similarly, I could see copyright covering the dinosaur bone copies.
  
  What's neat here is that it's not about copying the bones per se, but they've stolen the molds from which to make the bones! Are the molds useful articles (eg. they only to serve to create more bones) or are they art in themselves (eg. think photo negatives). If they're useful, no copyright; if art, then copyright.
  
  There's also the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA, 17 usc 106A), which is as close to moral rights that US law gets. There are a few cases under that act that specifically address the issue of molds used to create sculpture, which say that molds can be covered because they can be considered art in and of themselves.
  
  Predicted winner of this case: the lawyers.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Dec 14th, 2010 @ 10:31am

  
  

  Re: Amazing

  Your new recording of MOzart's work will contain some original expression (your playing, recording, editing, mixing, etc.), but what is the original expression contributed to the molds? I assume they are intended to be faithful reproductions.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Nick, Dec 16th, 2010 @ 9:52am

  
  

  Re: Re: Amazing

  The original expression would be me actually making the reproduction. A faithful reproduction takes enough creativity.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Dec 14th, 2010 @ 7:53am

  
  

  It would help to see a copy of any complaint that may have been filed. From the text of the article it sounds less a copyright-based suit and more an unfair competition and conversion suit.
  
  Admittedly, even I scratch my head trying to figure out if there is any aspect of making a cast replica of a bone that can result in an original work of authorship.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Dec 14th, 2010 @ 9:14am

  
  

  The title is misleading, because there is no copyright issue on the bones themselves.
  
  Creating the castings, which are expensive to do properly and is a unique work is an issue. They are unique to the people who made them, because another casting would not be exactly the same (even taken from exactly the same bones, as it is not a 100% exact copy).
  
  They are not claiming copyright on the bones, they are claiming rights to what is made (without permission) with the castings they created, which would appear to be very much in their rights.
  
  Trying to make it sound like someone is trying to copyright million year old bones is amusing, but highly misleading.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Dec 14th, 2010 @ 10:39am

  
  

  Re:

  Whether or not the castings are expensive to make or "unique" is not relevant. It is hard to imagine what original expression they contributed to the castings.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Dec 14th, 2010 @ 10:26am

  
  

  That sounds like a recipe for disaster for the plaintiff. Either they admit that their bone castings contain no original expression, and are therefore not protected by copyright, or they admit that their bone castings don't accurately capture the bones they found, and risk loss of reputation in their market (I assume their customers want accurate bone castings).

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  MD, Dec 14th, 2010 @ 10:45am

  
  

  Creative Boning

  Making a cast of a 3-D object is as creative as making a 2-D photo of a view. Eactly how much creativity goes into one VS he other - well, this is where lawyers get rich. A photographer can use composition, lighting, f-stop, POV and angle, contrast, etc. and be creative; but a total lack of any consideration of any such factors in a random snapshot is still a copyright expression. Is a security cam footage - set it up and let it tape a public view for a decade - still copyright? We have printed material - like phone books - where the material also cannot be copyright. Like a photographer, they could argue that the precise selection of the rare item(s) to be rendered/cast is the artistic input.
  
  From such details are lawyers' island vacation homes built.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Dec 14th, 2010 @ 10:50am

  
  

  "but a total lack of any consideration of any such factors in a random snapshot is still a copyright expression"
  
  I don't think that's true at all.
  
  "Making a cast of a 3-D object is as creative as making a 2-D photo of a view."
  
  What would the original expression be when the (presumed) goal is to faithfully recreate an item? Basing it solely on the selection of the item in question is an awfully thin reed to base a case on.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Dec 14th, 2010 @ 10:50am

  
  

  Re:

  Huh. This was intended as a reply to "Creative Boning"

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Dec 14th, 2010 @ 11:50am

  
  

  theft

  uhhmm why copyright? isn't "stealing" (in a non-riaa way) a better way to describe their use of the castings?

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Ben, Dec 14th, 2010 @ 9:16pm

  
  

  you guys have this all wrong.
  The T-rex should be sueing the guys that made the original copy. It's clearly in violation of its personal image rights.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Michael, Dec 15th, 2010 @ 4:19am

  
  

  Re:

  He is too busy with all of his defamation lawsuits for being portrayed as a violent killing machine.
  
  I'm pretty sure the ones in California only ate tofu.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Timothy Larson, Dec 7th, 2011 @ 3:02pm

  
  

  Misinformation

  Whoever posted this article needs to dig deeper into the facts. BHI initially sued FPPI for incorporating portions of "STAN T. rex" into their casting of "Peck's Rex". The parts of STAN were loaned to FPPI with a contract stating that the casts were to be used for reference only and copies may not be made. Copies of the STAN material were made and incorporated into casts of Peck's Rex which were sold, this not only violates copyright but is a violation of the specimen loan agreement as well. As for the SUE material: BHI collected and was able to partially prepare SUE. While BHI was preparing SUE, molds and casts were made (BHI owned the fossil at the time). Nature cannot be copyrighted, but sculpture can be. Fossil preparation includes sculpting the matrix away from the bone (this requires skilled hands to not damage the bone), rebuilding the bones (sometimes a single bone is scattered over several square feet, all the pieces must be collected), filling cracks in the bone (without this, another form of sculpture, the bones would fall apart, their stabalization is also copyrightable), sculpting missing portions (nearly every fossil has sculpted parts, or is composited from multiple specimens. Even this compositing is copyrightable). BHI holds copyrights to the preparation of all portions of SUE's fossils that were prepared by BHI staff. This is what allows BHI to continue to cast and sell certain SUE elements, such as the right arm. This lawsuit is to recoup losses from FPPI's sale of Peck's rex which resulted in a loss of sales for BHI. And to make a mold from a cast you are also violating the molder's copyright as molding takes a certain degree of skill to produce a good cast. Research next time!

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Add Your Comment