| Television sets have seen a lot of changes over the years. Coming in all shapes and sizes, they have followed trends and advances in technology, catering to viewer’s needs, wants and passing fads. Recent changes from analogue to digital signals, and standard view to high definition are now joined by the latest revolution: 3D television.
So what will be shown on these 3D sets? Most people don’t want to spend lots of cash on something that mostly delivers what their existing set currently offers. Looking forward, there are opportunities for the creation of new 3D sports and entertainment, and potential to give new life to back catalogues of material. There is also scope to support advances in video games and other peripherals using the television as an output device (e.g. online video streaming). |
 |
 |
This is where the legal factors kick in. First, the obvious: new features bring new Trademarks, new processes and effects may bring new patents, and new types of content may bring new copyright issues. In particular, if older material is revisited and updated (e.g. the restoration or colorization of old film / TV, there may be legal factors to consider as existing rights may be infringed or compromised for material not in the public domain. Second, the not so obvious: the unknowns. For example, if users have to wear 3D glasses, might there be a technical restriction on the number of active, concurrent glasses used during a single viewing? And what happens if aspects of the new 3D technology blur or question current legal distinctions – especially in terms of the software / Internet realm?
With 3D television still in its infancy in the consumer market there’s time for legal matters to be considered but as the line between offline and online use of televisions becomes blurred, I think it will be interesting to see how the current legislation stands up. |
Pages
Blogroll
Archives
{ 2 } Comments
I think this article touches a very interesting topic. Even leaving aside the legal aspects of this problem, I feel that technological innovation and fancy devices always change the current lifestyle of people and also question the validity of various legal things.
I would especially like to comment on the second legal factor that Ramona has mentioned in the article. The point raised is very valid and I think that even if some legal authority comes up with guidelines/rules on the number of active glasses used during a single viewing, there is no way to verify if such rules are being followed. My case study team (for the final paper that we have to write) came across a similar issue about Netflix (which is the topic we are writing about). Netflix definitely has rules and regulation about how many users can use a particular login ID and password and if the login credentials should be shared with someone else. What Netflix can do at the most is state some rules and regulations in their agreements. Its definitely not feasible for Netflix to monitor if each and every customer is following those guidelines. Services like Netflix are a definitely innovative and have changed the way people are watching online media contents but then such services also question existing legal practices.
By the way, Apple plans to come up with something called as ‘iSlate soon. We can definitely expect something revolutionary from them. Who knows if such innovative devices are again going to put into question the current legal practices like the 3D television in the above article does.
“In particular, if older material is revisited and updated (e.g. the restoration or colorization of old film / TV, there may be legal factors to consider as existing rights may be infringed or compromised for material not in the public domain”
This is a great point. Should translation to 3d start a new copyright timer. With colorization several people have argued it should. What about remastering an old song to clean it up?
If i go to a museum and clean a 700 year old painting should i gain a copyright in the new brighter version?