The cases you cited had nothing at all to do with buildings. O'Bannon's lawsuit was against the NCAA to force the NCAA to pay him for the use of his name and facial likeness on UCLA merchandise. Cleary, you either failed to actually read the case, or thought that flashing a bunch of names around would blindly make your point. All it did was get your account blocked by me since it's clear you don't want to have meaningful discussions.
Here is the actual case law, and yes, this has absolutely been posted here by me in the past:
"17 US Code 102 -- Subject matter of copyright: In general
(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:
(1) literary works;
(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
(7) sound recordings; and
(8) architectural works.
(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."
Section (b) is the critical part. It means that if someone takes a photo, or creates a painting or illustration of an architectural work, the copyright does not extend to that creation, provided that the creation was made from publicly accessible points of view. Meaning, I can stand or sit in any stadium, take a photo, or make a drawing of it, and neither the photo nor drawing is protected by any architectural copyrights that may apply to the stadium.
Courts have treated video game representations the same as photos or illustrations, since that's exactly what they are, digital illustrations stitched together with vector analysis routines to mimic 3D movement.
If people wish to argue with my interpretation of the law, then reference this:
"17 US Code 120 -- Scope of exclusive rights in architectural works
(a) Pictoral Representations Permitted. --
The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the rights to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.
(b) Alterations To And Destruction of Buildings. --
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(2), the owners of a building embodying an architectural work may, without the consent of the author or copyright owner of the architectural work, make or authorize the making of alterations to such building, and destroy or authorize the destruction of such building."
Now, let's look at how these laws have worked in courts of law.
Courts have established that even enforcement of trademarks within a building or structure would have to adhere to all four of these conditions:
- The building would need to have an identifiable, distinctive appearance.
- The building would have to be publicly associated with certain goods or services.
- Your use would have to be commercial (not editorial); and
- Your use would have to be linked to an offer or endorsement of similar goods or services.
For the purposes of a video game making virtual digital representations of a building, courts have ruled that item four as a restriction applies, since the video game does not in any way provide an offer or endorsement of a similar good or service. Meaning, a video game in the context of an MLB licensed software product, is not an actual physical stadium and therefore does not directly compete against the stadium from which the video digital representation was created from.
Now, here is where copyright violation MAY be present.
If the stadium includes advertisements using trademark protected references, such as a Coca Cola sign, then precise replication of that trademark in the video game may be a copyright violation. However, all such liability is removed if the ad is replaced using a non-trademarked presentation. That said, many courts have ruled that photos or illustrations of structures that included representations of the ads were also NOT violations of trademarks since they did not directly compete against the products carrying the trademarks.
This means that the reason for architectural copyright is NOT to prevent digital representations, but instead to prevent someone constructing an actual rival architectural structure that replicates those copyright protected design elements. The entire purpose of patents, copyrights, and trademarks is to prevent entities from stealing the protected work and using that to directly compete with the original work.
MLB The Show is not competition in any form against Yankee Stadium, MLB, nor any MLB or MiLB team. SDS's license is paid to use the trademarks of the team logos, uniforms, and player likenesses.
Again, this is multiple times I have written all this, and when the same person rehashes old arguments long ago disproven, there is no logical reaction except to regard the person as trolling and therefore block his account.
