Quoted from gdonovan:Is PPS claiming they have a 3d printer file of Rudy's head as well? The OP has a greater claim to copyright than PPS does on this point.
Is PPS going to threaten photocopier companies as well? They enable me to run off perfect manuals and game flyers.
The mechanics of duplication are not the concern - this has been covered extensively before (and why we are allowed VHS recorders, etc). And why 'taking a photo and printing it' isn't a valid defense of why you can duplicate copyrighted work and distribute it. The method of duplication is irrelevant - it's the original work that is protected under copyright.
The key as you point out is 'what are we claiming is protected'. The lay commonly interchange copyright and trademark - which are not the same at all.
If we are talking physical pinball parts.. walk through the potentials..
- Trademark
Trademark isn't a concern.. unless we are trying to print things like logos/phrases. Trademarks must be registered. Trademark doesn't cover utility. But interestingly enough this is the topic covering the term 'Multiball' and how WMS sued people like Data East. But not a parts topic..
- Copyright
Copyright doesn't need to be registered to be valid, but isn't applicable to just shapes/forms of parts. Copyright only applies to literary, musical, plays, choreography, graphic, sculpture, audio and visual works, and architecture. Copyright doesn't apply to a coil sleeve, to a ramp, to a utility part. You can't copyright a gear which has utility purpose and call it a 'sculpture'. Copyright is not for utility. For the obligatory cargument.. this is why we have reproduction auto parts.
The grey area would be if you had something that itself could be considered sculpture or art instead of utility. Like, what if you made a ark of the covenant to be a topper... or maybe a figurine of certain big green monster that was a target in the game.
- Patents
A part maybe patented and would then be limited in its reproduction.
You have DESIGN patents, which cover the ornamental, configuration or pattern intended to give it a unique or distinct appearance. Think the Coca Cola bottle. Only the appearance is covered - not the utility/purpose. Patents must be registered and pass tests to be awarded. Obviously this doesn't apply to utilitarian pinball parts, and the few ornamental/appearance things out there that could be patented, probably aren't for costs or upkeep (unless you were deeproot.. lol)
You also have UTILITY patents, which cover the unique design and how it works. A unique part could be covered as part of a patent and be restricted. This could be a concern if you were reproducing some parts of a mech or feature that was considered unique enough the company made a point of filing a patent to cover the implementation. But utility patents would be applied for and registered if awarded.
So where does all this leave us?
If you are talking about logos or art - It's copyrighted w/o any registration and you can't reproduce it except within fair use purposes. Companies must register it if they were going to pursue further damages.. but they don't have to force someone to stop using their copyrighted material. Hence, why people avoid including other people's unique art in reproduction parts.
If you are talking about logos or ornamental designs - you are at risk of violating Trademarks or even design patents. Both must be registered to be enforceable... but in pinball this is generally why you shouldn't be including other people's logos or names. Part numbers are NOT copyrightable or trademarked.
If you are talking about a part's physical design and purpose - you are really only concerned with Utility Patents.. and those must be awarded and active to be enforceable.