Some companies that make tools for art development or code development claim copyright for the stuff that is produced by an artist or developer.
For artwork, take Poser. They make a strong claim of copyright where I think you really can't do anything commercial with art produced by that tool, without paying royalty.
For coders, one could use Conitec as an example. At least in the A5 days they claimed copyright of the games produced with the 3d Game Studio system. I don't know about now though. You had to pay a license fee to Conitec to be able to use the tools of that package.
Now, I'm just curious about this. Do they have a claim like that? If I took a hammer and a box of nails and a saw and built a house, then the construction tool company that owned the brand of these tools and nails could not claim copyright to my house.
I've always seen it as equivalent of requiring license fees for code or art development. As if the toolmakers wanted license fees to allow you to build a house with their tools.
What do you think about this? Do they have a legal footing? Has it ever been tested in court?
-----
They SAID that given enough time a million monkeys with typewriters could recreate the collected works of William Shakespeare... Internet sure proved them wrong.
-----