Copyright Infringement of Lots of Artists.
Zorro
Muskie Teh Otterboi
(and looking at that questor pic.. OMG, i'm in love!)
Muskie
Dave The Dancing Venerable Dreadnought
Birnam wood to high alt.fan.furry. hill shall come against him.
>http://www.immorakaki.net/Immorakaki/
We do not need self appointed constables.
---
"Right-wingers don’t investigate right-wingers"
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Don Sanders
muskie...@yahoo.com.au says...
> No it's not. I see no reposted images. just Fanart.
> (and looking at that questor pic.. OMG, i'm in love!)
>
(Oh no, an art related post!!! must resist, must resist!)
(Too late.)
There was a time, so long ago when fanart of established characters
was a high form of flattery, one which promoted the creator of
characters and encouraged the neophyte artist to expand beyond their
failings.
These days, it seems the word "Fanart" has become a rather harsh
cursed notion unless the creator of fanart is just as skilled as the
big names, at least that is my current impression, I could be wrong.
Just vague similarities is enough to spark off a burning debate on if
a piece is infringing on some original artist, of course you gotta
ask yourself what is original anymore.
Anyway, I said my piece, time to crawl back under the old rock and
weather out another crap storm.
--
Don Sanders.
Who ran out of witty things to say at the end of his sig.
RHJunior
>
> We do not need self appointed constables.
No, but you do seem to need a kick or three in the arse.
One of the more popular fairy tales roaming about the fandom and the
internet is that "you can't copyright a character."
A more comprehensive understanding of copyright law and copyright legal
decisions would disabuse people of this notion.
http://www.publaw.com/graphical.html
http://www.bitlaw.com/trademark/common.html
Allow for a quick summation here.
There are three overlapping sets of laws governing protection of
graphic characters: COPYRIGHT, TRADEMARK (in this case, COMMON LAW
TRADEMARK) and UNFAIR COMPETITION LAWS.
First, contrary to popular myth, the courts HAVE repeatedly ruled that
character design is covered under copyright.
Some sample cases
Detective Comics, Inc. v. Bruns Publications
Warner Bros., Inc. v. American Broadcasting Cos
"The 1976 Copyright Act provides creators and/or owners of graphic
characters copyright protection that is strong, but of limited
duration. It is important to remember that the copyrightable expression
of a character is much more than just the character's physical
appearance, and that it includes the specific name, physical
appearance, and character traits of that character.....
... Therefore, while a court would probably not extend copyright
protection to any man with super powers, the courts have extended
copyright protection to Superman without bestowing a monopoly on the
mere character of a "super man". Therefore, the best way to protect a
graphic character under copyright law is to ensure that the character's
appearance and personality are specific and unique."
Now, the Air Pirates vs. Disney decision is an example ... Although the
court tossed out the Air Pirates' claim of "fair use," (take a note,
people--- bawling "fair use" or "satire" won't necessarily save your
ass!) it concluded that
"most of the previous cartoon character infringement cases "have
considered the character's personality and other traits in addition to
its image"."
in short, if a character design-- appearance, setting, traits, etc. are
sufficiently unique to fall under the "delineation" rule, **that
character design is protected under copyright law.**
Of course, that doesn't guarantee anyone a win in a court case on its
own.
That brings us to
UNFAIR USE LAWS.
"Unfair competition laws involve a variety of different causes of
action that primarily fall into three categories: (1)
misrepresentation, (2) sponsorhip, and (3) misappropriation. Although
these categories are frequently viewed separately, they clearly
overlap.
Misrepresentation occurs when a party represents that a particular
character is associated with their product or service, when, in
reality, it is not. sponsorhip occurs when a party indicates that a
particular character has endorsed its product or service when it has
not. Misappropriation, which may be most relevant with the protection
of characters, occurs when a party in essence steals another's
character in order to associate it with their product or service.
Therefore, when one brings an unfair competition action, the injured
party is claiming that their character has been wrongly associated with
another party's product, service, person, company, or idea."
And that brings us, finally, to
COMMON LAW TRADEMARK.
Trademark rights, by law, arise in the United States from the actual
use of the mark. Federal registration, a system created by federal
statute, is not required to establish common law rights in a mark, nor
is it required to begin use of a mark. (however, it does convey certain
legal advantages.) Common law trademark rights are limited to the
geographic area in which the mark is used.... however, this limitation
only applies **if the infringing party was concievably unaware of the
trademark's use elsewhere.** (Furthermore, internet activity tends to
"spread" the "geographic area" in question... but that's an "iffy"
area, and subsidiary to the fact that, if you swiped the character
online, you damned well KNOW it's being used elsewhere.)
In short, IF AN ARTIST SO CHOOSES, he can sue your ass under Copyright,
Unfair Use laws, and under common law Trademark infringement. He can
also legally lean on your ISP or webhost for giving you the space to
violate his copyrights and trademarks. When you use someone's character
without their permission, you're putting yourself right in the middle
of a three-way crossfire.... no matter what your good buddy on the news
server last week told you about how "dem darh copyraht laws dunt
apply."
Of course, you may be relying on the fact that no individual starving
artist is going to have the money or the moxie to sic a lawyer on
you.... but that's one hell of a gamble to take. Some people are just
mean enough summabitches to take out a second mortgage just to come
after you.... and if you have several artists' characters on your site,
you might as well just lie down and die, because that's the workings
for a class action suit-- and legally you'll have one nut in a vise,
the other taped to a battery lead and your dick stuck in a pencil
sharpener.
Now, mind, I might be 100% wrong about all of the above. And of course,
there's no guarantee anymore that the courts will even pay attention to
the laws, or that the court will find in the artist's favor. Or that
the artists will give a crap through a rolling donut...
On the other hand, the suing party only has to be right ONCE. While the
infringing party has to be lucky every single time....
BR
> These days, it seems the word "Fanart" has become a rather harsh cursed
> notion unless the creator of fanart is just as skilled as the big names,
> at least that is my current impression, I could be wrong.
More insightful is who's doing it, rather than the fact it's being done.
Unless you're never born, you'll always have a critic somewere. Then
again, that darn Don. How dare he stay holed up in their? Come out, come
out werever you are! It's just the rest of us.
Rick Pikul
> Now, mind, I might be 100% wrong about all of the above. And of course,
> there's no guarantee anymore that the courts will even pay attention to
> the laws, or that the court will find in the artist's favor. Or that
> the artists will give a crap through a rolling donut...
You've fallen into a common trap: The precedents you're looking at got
blown out when US copyright law changed in the 1980s.
Yes, it used to be that the US had clear and easy character copyright.
Now the test is much stricter.
--
Phoenix
RHJunior
which, the linked article on copyright for graphic characters is dated
1998.... so I'm afraid it's still more current than the info YOU'RE
working with.
Kathmandu
"Zorro" <zor...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1Ln7e.5989$lP1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> http://www.immorakaki.net/Immorakaki/
>
>
>
Actually, I would say it falls under fan art and parody. And now because of
this post, gazillions of others now have copies of the smut on their hard
drives. That's the way to fight the evildoers... make em famous and spread
the word, sheesh.
The art is so bad and offmodel with no identifying titles I would be
insulted to think it was infringement except in a couple that are of better
quality. Because there is no money being made off of them and the fact you
can't copyright a bear in a ballcap ( if you could RHJ would have been sued
out existence by Disney by now) there really isn't much going on here.
I want to say this also, if any of the artists who feel they are being
infringed upon or anyone else for that matter needs to look at their hard
drive before casting the first stone. If there is or has ever been a naked
picture of Gadget, Don Carnage, Lola Bunny or any other copyrighted
character on your computer, you need not be throwing stones in that glass
condo. If you have any in your possession then you should not complain when
someone does it to you. Remember that.
The Fox of Anjoú
Birnam wood to high alt.fan.furry. hill shall come against him.
>That still leaves unfair competition and common-law trademark. Besides
Do us all a favour and never post here again please. :(
The Fox of Anjoú
great Birnam wood to high alt.fan.furry. hill shall come against him.
>I want to say this also, if any of the artists who feel they are being
>infringed upon or anyone else for that matter needs to look at their hard
>drive before casting the first stone. If there is or has ever been a naked
>picture of Gadget, Don Carnage, Lola Bunny or any other copyrighted
>character on your computer, you need not be throwing stones in that glass
>condo. If you have any in your possession then you should not complain when
>someone does it to you. Remember that.
Let those without sin cast the first stone!
Don Sanders
brodr...@comcast.net says...
I was going to do a long and drawn out post in reference to the fan art
and the comments made on how poor quality it is, but I would be tilting
at windmills again. It seems in this genre, the "Who" only matters if
that person is known within the genre. Yep, there will always be
critics, but only rarely do you find a responsible critic, and those
kind of folks within this genre is growing quite rare. Yea, I'm being a
cynic again.
Besides, I like my rock, it is nice and safe here, insulated for the
most part from the big bad world of furry (or should I say Anthro since
Furry has become a bad name along with Fanart) art.
--
Don Sanders.
Who quoting Simon and Garfunkle... I am a rock, I am an island.
Caged_Horse
>there's no guarantee anymore that the courts will even pay attention to
the laws
No need for the laws of man when you have the word of God, eh, rightist?
RHJunior
That should hold up very nicely in an actual court setting.
Rick Pikul
> That still leaves unfair competition and common-law trademark.
Unfair competition only exists when there is competition, and yes
trademark does cover characters.
It also gives much less protection, and most certainly does not protect
against fan art.
> Besides
> which, the linked article on copyright for graphic characters is dated
> 1998.... so I'm afraid it's still more current than the info YOU'RE
> working with.
What matters is when the cases happened, note how it was refering to the
_1976_ version of US copyright law. Law which changed the instant the US
Senate ratified Berne.
--
Phoenix
RHJunior
think.... as a practical example, the courts have already ruled and
practice has already demonstrated that passing around free copies of
music files, for instance, is grounds for prosecution, no profit margin
needed.
Second, though I do not have a copyright on "a bear in a ballcap," I do
have a copyright on a bear in a ballcap who works/worked in a
department store and who is married to a cougar, etc etc.--- and,
coincidentally, to all the storylines he has been featured in on my
strip. No matter how poorly the art may be drawn, if it is distinctive
enough that the character features, traits, behaviors, setting and
other referents are recognizable as mine, it infringes on my copyright.
Third, as I pointed out in my original post, yelling "satire" is not a
magic heal-all do-over. (News flash: in Air Pirates vs. Walt Disney
Corp., the courts ***struck down*** their "fair use" argument. You'd be
amazed at how many people erroneously refer to that case as supposed
proof that "satire" is absolutely protected....) There are limits to
what constitutes satire, and what constitutes slander/libel, defamation
of character, dilution of a trademark....
And finally, the "you did it too, so I can do it to you" argument has
never held any water in any court anywhere, ever. It is irrelevent to
the issue at hand. It doesn't matter if the plaintiff is a carjacking
ex-con with a track record as long as your arm, if you break into his
house and steal his TV it is you, dear friend, who is in trouble, not
him.
The fact that the artist in question is a small time penny-ante
freelancer actually makes matters worse for the infringer. It can be
reasonably argued that a large corporation is not going to be
substantially injured, finance or reputation-wise, by artwork made of
their characters without their permission by some piddly pudyanker on
the web; on the other hand, a sole proprietorship or freelancer who is
barely getting by can suffer the consequences of your misappropriation
on a far worse proportionate scale. That WILL be taken into account in
any court decision, I assure you.
As has been revealed elsewhere, Micheal Russel, author of "Vicki Fox",
has already had to deal with this sort of nonsense himself. Someone
decided to post "satirical" work of his characters, and laughed in Mr.
Russel's face when he complained.
It seems, however, that the law IS on Mr. Russel's side.... at least
according to the lawyers he contacted who were familiar with common-law
Trademark regulations. The site went down.
Before you brag about how someone "can't touch you," it's wise to make
sure their reach doesn't extend across the table to where you're
sitting.
iBuck
> Again, according to law, monetary benefit is not as relevent as you
> think.... as a practical example, the courts have already ruled and
> practice has already demonstrated that passing around free copies of
> music files, for instance, is grounds for prosecution, no profit
margin
> needed.
Free -copies- of music, that's straight forward copying of the work in
question, with no test required to determine that the martiarial in
question is in fact portected or protectable, before you get to the
question of weather the fan art in question -infringes- that
protection.
> Before you brag about how someone "can't touch you," it's wise to
make
> sure their reach doesn't extend across the table to where you're
> sitting.
And there you run into problem #2, the -law- might reach the work in
question, however the -artist- might not be able to. (This of course
assumes that the infringing peice in question, is hosted and/or
produced in the US, overseas protection of characters, by copyright,
trademark, moral rights, may vary widely) these actions are -civil-
which means Alberto isn't going to do the fighting for you. You have to
bring the case yourself, in all probablily across state lines, and then
somehow wring the infringers name out of the ISP, and then if you win,
you face the challenge of actually -collecting- from the schmuck...
Don't leap for someone across the table, unless your're sure you're not
going to kick the chair out from under you while doing so.
Also, be carefull of takeing to much stock in articles that read in big
bold letters "THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE" at the bottom. Just because
it's -newer- doesn't nesc mean it's -right.
Rick Pikul
> Again, according to law, monetary benefit is not as relevent as you
> think.... as a practical example, the courts have already ruled and
> practice has already demonstrated that passing around free copies of
> music files, for instance, is grounds for prosecution, no profit margin
> needed.
That is about direct copies of works, in general a character does not
itself qualify as a work.
> Second, though I do not have a copyright on "a bear in a ballcap," I do
> have a copyright on a bear in a ballcap who works/worked in a department
> store and who is married to a cougar, etc etc.--- and, coincidentally,
> to all the storylines he has been featured in on my strip. No matter how
> poorly the art may be drawn, if it is distinctive enough that the
> character features, traits, behaviors, setting and other referents are
> recognizable as mine, it infringes on my copyright.
I doubt that passes the current test for character copyright under
current US law.
For that matter, _no_ character has ever been found to qualify under the
current test, (which boils down to "is the existence of this character so
meaningful as to make it a work in and of itself, separate from any story
or image"). Recent cases involving character copyright have relied on
both sides stipulating that the character qualified. (N.B. The side that
would benefit from such a fight is generally the side that is making the
claim in the first place).
> Third, as I pointed out in my original post, yelling "satire" is not a
> magic heal-all do-over. (News flash: in Air Pirates vs. Walt Disney
> Corp., the courts ***struck down*** their "fair use" argument. You'd be
> amazed at how many people erroneously refer to that case as supposed
> proof that "satire" is absolutely protected....) There are limits to
> what constitutes satire, and what constitutes slander/libel, defamation
> of character, dilution of a trademark....
The Air Pirates case is _NO LONGER PRECEDENT_, the case was from the
1970s and was eliminated along with the Tarzan case when the Berne
Convention became law in the US.
Remember, until the 1980s, the US was only working under the UCC and had
a number of copyright provisions that would have violated the terms of the
Berne Convention.
> As has been revealed elsewhere, Micheal Russel, author of "Vicki Fox",
> has already had to deal with this sort of nonsense himself. Someone
> decided to post "satirical" work of his characters, and laughed in Mr.
> Russel's face when he complained.
> It seems, however, that the law IS on Mr. Russel's side.... at least
> according to the lawyers he contacted who were familiar with common-law
> Trademark regulations. The site went down.
Trademark dilution is a different matter, and it is one of the few things
that gives more protection to the little guy.
--
Phoenix
Wanderer
government's website. It's current with every single amendment, so
hopefully your exacting standards will be met:
37. The Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 added section 106A. Pub. L. No.
101-650, 104 Stat.
5089, 5128. The Act states that, generally, section 106A is to take effect 6
months after the date
of its enactment, that is, 6 months after December 1, 1990, and that the
rights created by section
106A shall apply to (1) works created before such effective date but title
to which has not,
as of such effective date, been transferred from the author and (2) works
created on or after
such effective date, but shall not apply to any destruction, distortion,
mutilation or other
modification (as described in section 106A(a)(3)) of any work which occurred
before such
effective date. See also, endnote 3, chapter 3.
106 · Exclusive rights in copyrighted works3?
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title
has
the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the
public
by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works,
pantomimes,
and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the
copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works,
pantomimes,
and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual
images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the
copyrighted
work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work
publicly
by means of a digital audio transmission.
§ 106a · Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity-
(a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity.-Subject to section 107 and
independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a
work
of visual art-
(1) shall have the right-
(A) to claim authorship of that work, and
(B) to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of any work of
visual art which he or she did not create;
(2) shall have the right to prevent the use of his or her name as the author
of the work of visual art in the event of a distortion, mutilation, or other
modification of the work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or
reputation; and
(3) subject to the limitations set forth in section 113(d), shall have the
right-
(A) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification
of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation,
and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that
work is a violation of that right, and
(B) to prevent any destruction of a work of recognized stature, and any
intentional or grossly negligent destruction of that work is a violation of
that right.
(b) Scope and Exercise of Rights.-Only the author of a work of visual
art has the rights conferred by subsection (a) in that work, whether or not
the
author is the copyright owner. The authors of a joint work of visual art are
coowners
of the rights conferred by subsection (a) in that work.
(c) Exceptions.-(1) The modification of a work of visual art which is the
result of the passage of time or the inherent nature of the materials is not
a distortion,
mutilation, or other modification described in subsection (a)(3)(A).
(2) The modification of a work of visual art which is the result of
conservation,
or of the public presentation, including lighting and placement,
of the work is not a destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other
modification
described in subsection (a)(3) unless the modification is caused by
gross negligence.
(3) The rights described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) shall
not apply to any reproduction, depiction, portrayal, or other use of a work
in, upon, or in any connection with any item described in subparagraph
(A) or (B) of the definition of "work of visual art" in section 101, and any
such reproduction, depiction, portrayal, or other use of a work is not a
destruction,
distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in paragraph
(3) of subsection (a).
(d) Duration of Rights.-(1) With respect to works of visual art created
on or after the effective date set forth in section 610(a) of the Visual
Artists Rights
Act of 1990, the rights conferred by subsection (a) shall endure for a term
consisting
of the life of the author.
(2) With respect to works of visual art created before the effective date
set
forth in section 610(a) of the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, but title
to which
has not, as of such effective date, been transferred from the author, the
rights
conferred by subsection (a) shall be coextensive with, and shall expire at
the
same time as, the rights conferred by section 106.
(3) In the case of a joint work prepared by two or more authors, the rights
conferred by subsection (a) shall endure for a term consisting of the life
of the
last surviving author.
(4) All terms of the rights conferred by subsection (a) run to the end of
the
calendar year in which they would otherwise expire.
(e) Transfer and Waiver.-(1) The rights conferred by subsection (a) may
not be transferred, but those rights may be waived if the author expressly
agrees
to such waiver in a written instrument signed by the author. Such instrument
shall
specifically identify the work, and uses of that work, to which the waiver
applies,
and the waiver shall apply only to the work and uses so identified. In the
case of
a joint work prepared by two or more authors, a waiver of rights under this
paragraph
made by one such author waives such rights for all such authors.
(2) Ownership of the rights conferred by subsection (a) with respect to a
work of visual art is distinct from ownership of any copy of that work, or
of a
copyright or any exclusive right under a copyright in that work. Transfer of
ownership of any copy of a work of visual art, or of a copyright or any
exclusive
right under a copyright, shall not constitute a waiver of the rights
conferred
by subsection (a). Except as may otherwise be agreed by the author in a
written instrument signed by the author, a waiver of the rights conferred by
subsection (a) with respect to a work of visual art shall not constitute a
transfer
of ownership of any copy of that work, or of ownership of a copyright or
of any exclusive right under a copyright in that work.
§ 113 · Scope of exclusive rights in pictorial, graphic,
and sculptural works-
(a) Subject to the provisions of subsections (b) and (c) of this section,
the exclusive
right to reproduce a copyrighted pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work in
copies under section 106 includes the right to reproduce the work in or on
any
kind of article, whether useful or otherwise.
(b) This title does not afford, to the owner of copyright in a work that
portrays
a useful article as such, any greater or lesser rights with respect to the
making,
distribution, or display of the useful article so portrayed than those
afforded to
such works under the law, whether title 17 or the common law or statutes of
a State,
in effect on December 31, 1977, as held applicable and construed by a court
in an
action brought under this title.
(c) In the case of a work lawfully reproduced in useful articles that have
been
offered for sale or other distribution to the public, copyright does not
include any
right to prevent the making, distribution, or display of pictures or
photographs
of such articles in connection with advertisements or commentaries related
to the
distribution or display of such articles, or in connection with news
reports.
(d)(1) In a case in which-
(A) a work of visual art has been incorporated in or made part of a building
in such a way that removing the work from the building will cause the
destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work as
described
in section 106A(a)(3), and
(B) the author consented to the installation of the work in the building
either
before the effective date set forth in section 610(a) of the Visual Artists
Rights Act of 1990, or in a written instrument executed on or after such
effective
date that is signed by the owner of the building and the author and that
specifies that installation of the work may subject the work to destruction,
distortion,
mutilation, or other modification, by reason of its removal, then the
rights conferred by paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 106A(a) shall not
apply.
(2) If the owner of a building wishes to remove a work of visual art which
is a part of such building and which can be removed from the building
without
the destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work
as described in section 106A(a)(3), the author's rights under paragraphs (2)
and
(3) of section 106A(a) shall apply unless-
(A) the owner has made a diligent, good faith attempt without success
to notify the author of the owner's intended action affecting the work of
visual art, or
(B) the owner did provide such notice in writing and the person so notified
failed, within 90 days after receiving such notice, either to remove the
work or to pay for its removal.
For purposes of subparagraph (A), an owner shall be presumed to have
made a diligent, good faith attempt to send notice if the owner sent such
notice
by registered mail to the author at the most recent address of the author
that was recorded with the Register of Copyrights pursuant to paragraph (3).
If the work is removed at the expense of the author, title to that copy of
the
work shall be deemed to be in the author.
(3) The Register of Copyrights shall establish a system of records whereby
any author of a work of visual art that has been incorporated in or made
part
of a building, may record his or her identity and address with the Copyright
Office. The Register shall also establish procedures under which any such
author may update the information so recorded, and procedures under which
owners of buildings may record with the Copyright Office evidence of their
efforts to comply with this subsection.
There, does that help?
Boiling it down, yes, RHJ has a leg to stand on. He can certainly argue
that having his characters portrayed in such a way as depicted does damage
his reputation (especially since Ben is married at the time that Beltane is
complaining about the Christmas decorations) and such renderings are indeed
a violation of copyright. Clear?
Yours truly,
The research-happy,
Wanderer
wand...@ticnet.com
"Where am I going? I don't quite know.
What does it matter *where* people go?
Down to the woods where the bluebells grow!
Anywhere! Anywhere! *I* don't know!"
-- a. a. milne
iBuck
>do
>have a copyright on a bear in a ballcap who works/worked in a
>department store and who is married to a cougar, etc etc.--- and,
>coincidentally, to all the storylines he has been featured in on my
>strip. No matter how poorly the art may be drawn, if it is distinctive
>enough that the character features, traits, behaviors, setting and
>other referents are recognizable as mine, it infringes on my
>copyright.
Like all that background is -ever- going to show up in a single peice
of fan art. In logical terms, you've defined your character in a string
of "AND" statements, lose any of em, or change em and the peice is
outside of your "copyright" -especially- if the fan art is twisting
the knife by showing the character behaving -out- of character.
So if someone draws a bear banging in cougar in a department store, an
he's -not- wearing a baseball cap, you're SOL...
iBuck
argue
>that having his characters portrayed in such a way as depicted does
damage
>his reputation (especially since Ben is married at the time that
Beltane is
>complaining about the Christmas decorations) and such renderings are
indeed
>a violation of copyright. Clear?
Most IP law doesn't give a damn about reputation, Just weather the use
is infinging his copyright or unfair competition to Ben's product.
(Parody isn't competition, it's commentary, if that commentary make Ben
look bad, because it draws attention to his faults, too bad) In
trademark in particular, if Ben fails to defend his character against
other uses, -regardless- of thier effect to his reputation, he may find
his protection limited, because the mark has become generic.
And again, this is a civil matter, the goverment isn't going to do the
work of protecting the character for Ben...
Or as Ben's own source put it...(emphesis mine)
" should do all that is necessary or -FINANCIALLY FEASABLE- to properly
protect this potentially valuable graphic character."
Silver Seams
news:tr8561lrhvf5vh63u...@4ax.com:
> The formatting stinks, but what I seemed to see in that big
> listing
> seems to imply that duplicating /an image/, as it appeared, falls
> under copyright, but that duplicating something that /looks like/ a
> character from a copyrighted work, in a new setting/situation would
> still be a trademark hassle.
Or maybe a copyright hassle too, if the character is well-established
enough.
There's a pretty good reference involving Todd McFarlane, Neil Gaiman, and
Medieval Spawn; I can't remember the URL but those terms ought to be
enough to Google for.
--
http://www.silverseams.com/ - Fursuits, plushies, and other stuff
http://www.furbid.ws/cgi-bin/auction.pl?alluser&Silver_seams
The Saprophyte
Don Sanders wrote:
> In article <pan.2005.04.15....@comcast.net>,
> brodr...@comcast.net says...
>
>>On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:32:46 -0400, Don Sanders wrote:
>>
>>
>>>These days, it seems the word "Fanart" has become a rather harsh cursed
>>>notion unless the creator of fanart is just as skilled as the big names,
>>>at least that is my current impression, I could be wrong.
>>
>>More insightful is who's doing it, rather than the fact it's being done.
>>Unless you're never born, you'll always have a critic somewere. Then
>>again, that darn Don. How dare he stay holed up in their? Come out, come
>>out werever you are! It's just the rest of us.
>>
>
>
> I was going to do a long and drawn out post in reference to the fan art
> and the comments made on how poor quality it is, but I would be tilting
> at windmills again.
You know binaries aren't allowed here.
It seems in this genre, the "Who" only matters if
> that person is known within the genre.
http://familyscreenscene.allinfoabout.com/movies/wheels_bus.html
Yep, there will always be
> critics, but only rarely do you find a responsible critic, and those
> kind of folks within this genre is growing quite rare. Yea, I'm being a
> cynic again.
>
Personally, I like my critics well done.
> Besides, I like my rock, it is nice and safe here, insulated for the
> most part from the big bad world of furry
Nothing like a rock with good R value.
(or should I say Anthro since
> Furry has become a bad name along with Fanart) art.
Mommeeeeee! Dsan called the Fandom a bad name!
>
> --
> Don Sanders.
> Who quoting Simon and Garfunkle... I am a rock, I am an island.
It's a lifetime tumble journey from the east side to the park
Just a fine and fancy ramble to the zoo
But you can take a cross-town bus if it's rainy or it's cold
and the animals would love it if you do
--
The Saprophyte
--
Rick Pikul
> Here, Rick. Here's the relevant portion of Copyright Law, straight from the
> government's website. It's current with every single amendment, so
> hopefully your exacting standards will be met:
Well, they're not quite that exacting. They're more along the lines of
"Stop ignoring the major changes made _two decades_ ago." Which for
character copyright means to forget about the Air Pirates and Tarzan cases
that used to be the defining precedent in the US.
> (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
<peeve type=pet>
Gah, when will the US get around to getting rid of that misleading word?
(For those who don't know, 'derivative' has a meaning in copyright law
that has almost nothing to do with the regular English meaning.)
</peeve>
> (A) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other
> modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor
> or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or
> modification of that work is a violation of that right, and
>
> There, does that help?
>
> Boiling it down, yes, RHJ has a leg to stand on. He can certainly argue
> that having his characters portrayed in such a way as depicted does
> damage his reputation (especially since Ben is married at the time that
> Beltane is complaining about the Christmas decorations) and such
> renderings are indeed a violation of copyright. Clear?
It still runs into the problem of characters not generally qualifying as
works. You are limited in what you can do with a work, but just because
something is an element in a work does not mean those same limitations
apply.
--
Phoenix
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
> Ah, the "you did it too so I can do it to you" argument.
>
> That should hold up very nicely in an actual court setting.
Its called "Unclean hands" and it has held up nicely in actual court
settings.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes.
Style Wager
> that having his characters portrayed in such a way as depicted does damage
> his reputation (especially since Ben is married at the time that Beltane
is
> complaining about the Christmas decorations) and such renderings are
indeed
> a violation of copyright. Clear?
>
> Yours truly,
>
> The research-happy,
>
> Wanderer
> wand...@ticnet.com
There is also another reason to have the site shut down.
I've been told that appearently someone has been posting pics there of
Tabatha from "Sabrina Online" of an inapropriate nature. If it's true, I
think that it now falls under child pr*n in criminal law and that will get
it dropped by the server provider faster than you can say "John Henry".
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>> Boiling it down, yes, RHJ has a leg to stand on. He can certainly argue
>> that having his characters portrayed in such a way as depicted does damage
>> his reputation (especially since Ben is married at the time that Beltane
>> is complaining about the Christmas decorations) and such renderings are
>> indeed a violation of copyright. Clear?
The damage of reputation clause only applies if the artwork damages
the artists reputation by making someone think that the fan art was
produced by the real artist. I think that the artwork can be argued
to be a parody/commentary on Ben's artwork. It says things about the
theams and hypocrisies embedded in Ben's stories. So therefor I would
aruge that it is legitimatly fair use.
[...]
> I've been told that appearently someone has been posting pics there of
> Tabatha from "Sabrina Online" of an inapropriate nature. If it's true, I
> think that it now falls under child pr*n in criminal law
My understanding is that to fall under the child porn laws it has to
be photographs of real children. A fake children law was tossed out
by the supremes.
kevin...@aol.com
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > I've been told that appearently someone has been posting pics there
of
> > Tabatha from "Sabrina Online" of an inapropriate nature. If it's
true, I
> > think that it now falls under child pr*n in criminal law
>
> My understanding is that to fall under the child porn laws it has to
> be photographs of real children. A fake children law was tossed out
> by the supremes.
>
Remember that the (imaginary children having sex = Kiddy porn) argument
can also be twisted into the (imaginary animals having sex =
beastality)
iBuck
>be photographs of real children. A fake children law was tossed out
>by the supremes.
The law was revised, and the modified one is currently on the books,
and has not been challenged as of yet, I don't recall the nuances of
the current law though.