I think efforts like this are awesome and I hope to see more in the future, but sometimes I wonder if some for-profit entity will swoop in and yoink all of the hard work these wholesome researchers have put out there for free.
I feel that this happens a lot with well thought out "PhD-level" software. Someone with dollar-sign eyes (who is capable of understanding it) takes the FLOSS and wraps it with a different UI, thereby profiteering off the backs of grad students...
> A Neural Radiance Field (NeRF) is a method based on deep learning for reconstructing a three-dimensional representation of a scene from two-dimensional images. It is a type of generative model that can create 3D scenes from a set of 2D images.[1] The NeRF model can learn the scene geometry, camera poses, and the reflectance properties of objects in a scene, which allows it to render new views of the scene from novel viewpoints.
I'm assuming they mean from the owners of the Nerf brand of foam toys (I think owned by Hasbro nowadays). They could attempt to argue that NerfStudio dilutes the Nerf mark. Not necessarily a frivolous argument and they don't need to show likelihood of confusion in that case.
Trademarks are bound to markets / domains (toys vs computer perception). In my limited understanding, nerf the toys and nerf the computer perception tech, do not serve the same market.
That's not universally true. For most marks, you are right. But for certain particularly "famous" marks, the owner has a potential cause of action for dilution of the owner's mark. Unlike trademark infringement, which requires a showing of likelihood of confusion (which is bolstered by a showing that the two purported mark users serve the same market), trademark dilution does not.
I feel that this happens a lot with well thought out "PhD-level" software. Someone with dollar-sign eyes (who is capable of understanding it) takes the FLOSS and wraps it with a different UI, thereby profiteering off the backs of grad students...