Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Those darn Far Side tribute pages

36 views
Skip to first unread message

Ian McDonald

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

While I was at the Creators Syndicate website, I came across the
following. Ithought you all might be interested in reading it, especially
those of you with Far Side tribute pages.


A NOTE FROM GARY LARSON


RE: Online Use of Far Side Cartoons

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

I'm walking a fine line here.

On the one hand, I confess to finding it quite flattering that some of my
fans have created web sites displaying and / or distributing my work on
the Internet. And, on the other, I'm struggling to find the words that
convincingly but sensitively persuade these Far Side enthusiasts to "cease
and desist" before they have to read these words from some lawyer.

What impact this unauthorized use has had (and is having) in tangible
terms is, naturally, of great concern to my publishers and therefore to me
-- but it's not the focus of this letter. My effort here is to try and
speak to the intangible impact, the emotional cost to me, personally, of
seeing my work collected, digitized, and offered up in cyberspace beyond
my control.

Years ago I was having lunch one day with the cartoonist Richard Guindon,
and the subject came up how neither one of us ever solicited or accepted
ideas from others. But, until Richard summed it up quite neatly, I never
really understood my own aversions to doing this: "It's like having
someone else write in your diary", he said. And how true that statement
rang with me . In effect, we drew cartoons that we hoped would be
entertaining or, at the very least, not boring; but regardless, they would
always come from an intensely personal, and therefore original
perspective.

To attempt to be "funny" is a very scary, risk-laden proposition. (Ask any
stand-up comic who has ever "bombed" on stage.) But if there was ever an
axiom to follow in this business, it would be this: be honest to yourself
and -- most important -- respect your audience.

So, in a nutshell (probably an unfortunate choice of words for me), I only
ask that this respect be returned, and the way for anyone to do that is to
please, please refrain from putting The Far Side out on the Internet.
These cartoons are my "children," of sorts, and like a parent, I'm
concerned about where they go at night without telling me. And, seeing
them at someone's web site is like getting the call at 2:00 a.m. that
goes, "Uh, Dad, you're not going to like this much, but guess where I am?"

I hope my explanation helps you to understand the importance this has for
me, personally, and why I'm making this request.

Please send my "kids" home. I'll be eternally grateful.


Most respectfully,

Gary Larson


I'm not sure what to make of this message. On the one hand, I feel that
you have to respect Larson's wishes. If you're a true fan of The Far
Side, you should (I believe) do as he asks.

I just don't know if I agree with him. I mean, can't the Far Side
websites out there be considered free advertising for him? If my first
exposure to The Far Side is from a fan's tribute site, and I like it so
much that I buy as many Far Side books as I can get my hands on, well,
isn't this a good thing for Larson?

Yes, I can see a downside of sorts. A Far Side website would be a problem
if a) someone is offering a large portion of his work on their site, b)
someone has altered Larson's work, and/or not acknowledged that The Far
Side is copyright Gary Larson, or c) someone is using The Far Side to
attract you to their site, where they hope to try to sell you on something
else. But if it's merely a tribute site that offers a few samples of
Larson's work, and the website owner readily acknowledges Larson's
ownership, well, that shouldn't be a problem...should it?

My apologies for the length of this message, but I just thought it would
be something you'd all be interested in. Comments, anyone?

Cheers!
Ian McDonald


Mwcartoons

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

In article <01bd56d5$e57959c0$a14ba5c6@default>, "Ian wrote:

>My apologies for the length of this message, but I just thought it would
>be something you'd all be interested in. Comments, anyone?
>
>Cheers!
>Ian McDonald

I'm impressed by both your concerns, Ian, and Mr. Larson's. Seems too heavy
for me to comment further, at least in the moment. Let me chew on it a while.
Anyone else??
pg


March Huebys: http://members.aol.com/huebytoon/Hueby.html

Thomas K. Dye

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

> I'm not sure what to make of this message. On the one hand, I feel that
> you have to respect Larson's wishes. If you're a true fan of The Far
> Side, you should (I believe) do as he asks.

Basically, they should respect his wishes. But they should emphasize to
him that there should be an "official" Far Side webpage (or at least a Gary
Larson info page) to appease fans, or he may lose a lot of respect.

I personally believe he's overreacting, as the images are already
copyrighted, since they have been published. If someone wanted to sell
reproductions of Larson cartoons as their own work, he'd have more of a
reason to be upset. But you could have that problem anyway, without the
Net.

He's the artist, he can do what he wants. I'm just mildly surprised that
he's as temperamental as Watterson. (Then again, sometimes temperament
goes hand in hand with brilliance.)

Thomas K. Dye

Gil

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

I find everyone's critique of the subject very fascinating. I took some
intellectual law classes, and I was always under the impression that as
long as any copy made "for the private, personal use of the one who
makes the copy of the copyrighted material" was okay. Example... since
my Chevy truck has a tape deck, and I buy CD's, then if I copy a Seal
album onto a tape for my, and solely my, listening pleasure, that's
okay! It's when I decide to copy it and sell it that I cross legal
barriers (or, for that matter, if I give it away free).

The net poses some very harsh legal challenges. If I acknowledge the
work as Larson's, and post it on my website, with the full intention of
it just being a tribute, then it may stand to reason that I am simply
"expressing my opinion" and this may be protected by the constitution as
an act of free speech.

However, if one moves the cursor over the cartoon image I posted, clicks
on it, and it allows the user to instantaneously make a hard copy of
said image, then that's a legal problem. But, if I were just visiting
the website and went through the trouble of making a hard-copy, then
that's a violation.

As well, Larson has some fine points he made with the most poise and
tact I have ever seen in someone who sits on the fence dividing the Law
and the Net. I'm sure Larson is very flattered, and probably doesn't
have a big problem with this (far be it for me to judge what another man
feels, I'll leave that to Osam), but he handles it with class.

I'm sure simply acknowledging the work and saying "hey, I love this
stuff" is pretty much covered. As for the publicity aspect, I don't
agree that it's specious. Let's examine what the folks at Comedy
Central did about South Park websites.

For one, they "publicly" stated in Newsweek and the Rolling Stone that
they will 'crack down' on pirate websites. Then, their creators go on
their own Comedy Central channel and declare "no, we've spoken to the
legal team, and we really don't find it a problem"... after all, it
doesn't matter to them. It's free publicity, and they reach new markets
this way, they admit it. Their lawyers undoubtedly make these public
"hardline" statements to slow down the number of sites, not to go out
and bust people. But I'm sure they wonder how far they'll let it go
(the old "when is enough enough?" syndrome).

As for Larson and his team, I take creators syndicate more seriously. I
believe Creators would press legal action. It's a cash cow worth
millions already, and business wise, there's no need to disturb profits.
So I understand where they come from as well.

Larson handled it well, rack him up for Grandmaster of Tact, and chalk
one up for Creators ability to handle it so well. That's comforting to
know they took a gentle approach. Props out to Larson and Creators!
Nice job, guys!

-Gil
In the Land of Osam, they call me "He Who Runs With Arrogance"

Gil

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

NOTE: IT SHOULD READ "INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW CLASSES"


Gil wrote:
>
> I find everyone's critique of the subject very fascinating. I took some ---> CORRECTION......

Ian McDonald

unread,
Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98
to


Mary Jo Place <mjp...@mtholyoke.edu> wrote:

> In fact, reproducing
> Larson's letter in its entirety here COULD also be a violation of
> copyright, but I'm guessing from the tone of the letter it was meant for
> mass distribution. I'm sure you checked before reproducing it, right?
:)

Uhhhh.... I was just wondering... would you happen to know the number of a
good lawyer who works, like, REAL cheap?

Wait a minute: maybe I could get in touch with Steve Dallas. He's not
doing anything lately, is he? ;-)

BTW, MJ, you response to my post was an excellent read. 'Twas one of the
few times I actually learned something useful while browsing the
newsgroups. Larson's letter was cool and all, but he could've used your
help on some of the finer points.

Now I'm wondering: anyone out there reading this who actually has a
tribute web page to The Far Side, or some other comic strip? If so, what
do you think of all this? Will Larson's letter change your mind?

Take care,
Ian McDonald
--
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/5167
Home of Bruno the Bandit - a comic strip you might enjoy.
(-:----------For a limited time only!-----------:-)
(-: Read the strip, you may win a prize! :-)
(-:-------------Details at my site!---------------:-)


Mwcartoons

unread,
Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98
to

In article <351806...@tamu.edu>, Gil wrote:

>As for Larson and his team, I take creators syndicate more seriously. I
>believe Creators would press legal action.


Creators? I thought Universal represented the Far Side..i may be wrong.


March Huebys: http://members.aol.com/huebytoon/Hueby.html

Mwcartoons

unread,
Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98
to

In article <01bd56ed$242feb40$a1f186cd@default>, "Thomas wrote:

>He's the artist, he can do what he wants. I'm just mildly surprised that
>he's as temperamental as Watterson. (Then again, sometimes temperament
>goes hand in hand with brilliance.)

I've chewed and come up with this simple idea: Make it clear to folks you need
written PERMISSION first..and that you are not making a profit from the posting
of a comic or two (or three or whatever they feel is fair).

That way Larson's people have legal documents and can keep an eye on the site,
if they want to.

Here's a side story:
I occasionally do music cds and wanted to do a cover of a Bruce Cockburn song
( a famous songwriter/singer in Canada)...I asked their offices if I could get
permission..they were so generous with me..I was majorly impressed. All they
asked me to put in writing wa s that my CD was NOT for profit (which it
wasn't/just self-promo).. It's quite admirable when the famous bend in a fair
way.


March Huebys: http://members.aol.com/huebytoon/Hueby.html

hath...@stsci.edu

unread,
Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98
to

In article <35192...@news.mtholyoke.edu>, mjp...@mtholyoke.edu (Mary Jo Place) writes:

> Gil (gi...@tamu.edu) wrote:
>> I find everyone's critique of the subject very fascinating. I took some
>> intellectual law classes, and I was always under the impression that as
>> long as any copy made "for the private, personal use of the one who
>> makes the copy of the copyrighted material" was okay. Example... since
>> my Chevy truck has a tape deck, and I buy CD's, then if I copy a Seal
>> album onto a tape for my, and solely my, listening pleasure, that's
>> okay! It's when I decide to copy it and sell it that I cross legal
>> barriers (or, for that matter, if I give it away free).
>
> No, I don't think so. If you read any copyright notice on any book, movie,
> record or CD it pretty much flat-out states something along the lines of
> "no unauthorized copying or reproduction in any format without written
> permission from the publisher". I believe any copy is illegal, regardless
> of its purpose.
...

Whoops - will this end the practice of re-posting copies on newsgroups
of what other people originated?
If so, can we start with the ones that repeat entire postings appended
with just a "Me-too"?

To be serious, periodic reminders to be aware of copyright rules and to
acknowledge the rights and wishes of creators is a Good Thing.

I disagree with one point that has been made in this thread - that any
unauthorised copy takes money from the producers. This assumes that
the person doing the copy would otherwise buy the full-priced product.
Some, maybe most, won't. They'd do without. No money gets spent or made
in these cases whether or not the laws are respected. Karma might suffer
from such disrespect, but not $.


Gil

unread,
Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98
to

I shoudl clarify the South Park incident for Mary Jo and for all racs
readers:

The creators, in conjunction with the legal team at Comedy Central, are
fully aware that pirate copies of their show are made available on the
web. They are not having any problem with this because they consider it
free exposure (especially to areas that do not get Comedy Central).
They are taking it rather well, I guess. It's a merchandice bonanza
either way for them!

-Gil

Gil

unread,
Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98
to Mary Jo Place

Actually, Mary Jo,

There was a fedreal case in Houston four years ago that stemmed from a
collection of bars and clubs called the "The Richmond Restaurant & Bar
Association" which challenged the pay-per-view restrictions placed on
bars and restaurants by the local cable companies during the Houston
Rockets run to the world series.

The court found in favor of the cable companies, but it did note that
exhibition and duplication of copyrighted material for the personal use
of an individual by an individual is warranted and, in fact, allowed in
such areas as academic research; however, it stood to reason that an
establishment which is patroned by a large number of people for the sole
purpose of eating and / or consuming alcohol can not reasonably assumed
to be an individual use.

We discussed the subject in my intellectual property law class, and I
was taught that the federal court's general view on copyrighted material
is "if you use it at home, or for personal use only, then you are not in
violation of the law".

Despite what the little "copyright notice" might say, the fact that the
courts interpret it a certin way creates its own law (the fact being
that the United States, like England, allows court rulings to be
considered law is the dominating factor here, not just what the notice
says).

Therefore, I would like to reiterate that while I can make a copy of a
Seal album onto tape for my personal use in the car, I can not go and
hand out the copy to a friend as an original. That's a copyright
violation. Worse yet, if I give a copy to a friend to make a copy,
that's an even worse violation of the law.

The grey area is copying a comic strip and placing it in your cubicle at
work. Clearly, to me, this is a violation of copyright if you do not
own your company (and I don't mean just participating in the stock share
program). You are publicly displaying your strip in a public place.
That is a copyright violation.

The reason places like Kinko's have those little copyright warning
statements on all their copiers is because you have crossed the privacy
line when you photocopy copyrighted material in a public domain.
However, any Kinko's that I have been in (be it Philadelphia, Houston,
or Chicago), have always asked if the material I was copying was
intended for private use (whenever I have had them make the copies).
Clearly, they wouldn't ask me that unless they knew that exceptions were
made for personal and private us.

Kinko's has served as a poster child in the 'private and personal use'
of copyrighted material. That was one of their first cases ever brougt
against them. The courts did find in favor of Kinko's, stating they can
not be held liable for making copies for personal and priavte uses of
individuals, nor can you hold them liable for people using their
facilities to make personal-use copies. The fact remained that Kinko's
covered their tracks and placed the copyright notice on all the copiers.
That was that. End of story for Kinko's.

If we take the stringent position of reading "the letter of the law" as
the copyright notice stands, we would be guilty everytime more than one
person in our home watched a movie that we bought at the store. After
all, it becomes public exhibition.

What matters in all law is not the law itself, but the law as it is
written coupled with the court's interpretation of the law. There's a
vagrancy law in Houston that defines vagrant as "one who, on his or her
person, does not posses at least five dollars in U.S. currency and
carries no personal identification of any kind...". We can all see who
this targets. The fact remains that most courts will throw out a
vagrancy charge because these people are already homeless. And are you
going to sit there and tell me a cop will stop a guy in an Armani suit
and charge him with vagrancy if he lost his wallet that day and no means
of ID or five dollars? The law itself becomes nil. That is an extreme
case.

Most laws fall in the middle: they are neither strictly interpreted nor
nil. They are granted new meaning as the courts flex and contract their
muscles. As for now, I can use the copyright personally. But I can't
go around making copies of all the Garfield strips with Lyman and going
"hey, here's some of my favorite Lyman strips!"

Thanks for your time!

-Gil

Mwcartoons

unread,
Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98
to

In article <35192...@news.mtholyoke.edu>, mjp...@mtholyoke.edu wrote:

> The original Jesus-and-Santa-Claus
>short is a web legend right up there with the exploding whale. People
>passed it around all over the place, and it ultimately fell into the right
>hands. The rest, as they say, is history.


When unknown... artists WELCOME this kind of 'free' distribution/publicity.
Then when you're famous, the tune can change pretty fast.


Oh so nice Huebys: http://members.aol.com/huebytoon/Hueby.html

SaThomp28

unread,
Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98
to

hath...@stsci.edu wrote:

> I disagree with one point that has been made in this thread - that any
>unauthorised copy takes money from the producers. This assumes that
>the person doing the copy would otherwise buy the full-priced product.
>Some, maybe most, won't. They'd do without. No money gets spent or made
>in these cases whether or not the laws are respected. Karma might suffer
>from such disrespect, but not $.

But that's not the point. The point is that they obtained whatever it was that
was copied without having to "buy-in" to the use. If they would end up not
purchasing it at all, they don't get that use. When someone copies a
computer game, for instance, sure they can claim that they wouldn't have
purchased it if they had to (and what an easy argument to make when you've
already got a pirated copy!) but they didn't have to spend $40 to get the use
that they did, which any person actually obeying the law would have to.

What do you think people are paying for? They're paying for the use of the
object, and there's no difference in that respect between people who have
legitimate or illegitimate copies. Creators should receive the benefit that
other people glean from their creation. If you don't want to pay money for
something, you shouldn't use it, instead of obtaining an illegitimate copy and
claiming that you wouldn't have paid for it in the first place.

SaThomp28

unread,
Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98
to

mjp...@mtholyoke.edu (Mary Jo Place) wrote:

>Gil (gi...@tamu.edu) wrote:
>> I find everyone's critique of the subject very fascinating. I took some
>> intellectual law classes, and I was always under the impression that as
>> long as any copy made "for the private, personal use of the one who
>> makes the copy of the copyrighted material" was okay. Example... since
>> my Chevy truck has a tape deck, and I buy CD's, then if I copy a Seal
>> album onto a tape for my, and solely my, listening pleasure, that's
>> okay! It's when I decide to copy it and sell it that I cross legal
>> barriers (or, for that matter, if I give it away free).
>
>No, I don't think so. If you read any copyright notice on any book, movie,
>record or CD it pretty much flat-out states something along the lines of
>"no unauthorized copying or reproduction in any format without written
>permission from the publisher". I believe any copy is illegal, regardless

>of its purpose. I'm guessing the "home use" idea stems from the obvious--
>your chances of getting caught are almost nil, and your chances of going
>to court over it are even "niller". But technically I believe it is
>illegal, just as going above the posted speed limit is illegal. Everyone
>does it (except me, of course; I'm a perfect little angel) and you're only
>in trouble if you get caught and the cop's in a bad mood.

Actually, when CDs came into common use, the law pertaining to sound recordings
changed. With the proliferation of CDs, every person who owned a CD could make
a perfect copy of the music on it to a tape, and Congress realized that
preventing the private copying in this respect would be impossible, so they
changed the law. Prior to the CD, Congress felt that the natural limitations
in copying a copy of an analog recording onto a tape was enough to discourage
its widespread use. Namely, if you make a tape from a tape, the resulting copy
will deteriorate rapidly, and the quality of it in the first place isn't
terribly good (not to mention the damage you do to the original by simply
playing it). Now, with the digital recording on CD, you can make unlimited
copies of the music without any deterioration in sound quality.

As a result, what Congress did was pass a bill that requires the producers of
tape recorders and blank tapes to pay a royalty to companies that produce
music. When I buy a Sony tape recorder, some of my money goes to Capitol
Records, for example, because Sony has allowed me to make unlimited copies of
Capitol's CDs.

If DVD catches on, I suspect that the same thing will happen with videotapes
and VCRs.

>> The net poses some very harsh legal challenges. If I acknowledge the
>> work as Larson's, and post it on my website, with the full intention of
>> it just being a tribute, then it may stand to reason that I am simply
>> "expressing my opinion" and this may be protected by the constitution as
>> an act of free speech.
>

>Well, "free speech" is a whole 'nother can of worms which is not always as
>romantically broad as the general public interprets it. Libel and slander
>are not protected, for example. But your idea might work on another level.
>Many copyright notices for books make the exception of allowing brief
>exerpts to appear in reviews and critiques of the work. If a fan stated he
>was reviewing the work it might hold up in court. He might also claim
>"fair use", whereupon it would be up to the courts to determine what
>exactly constitutes fair use for that particular body of work.

Fair use is an entirely different animal. Fair use is actually fairly well
developed and specific. For example, criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching, scholarship or research fall within the bounds of fair use. There's
also a test that a court will apply to a work in order to determine whether
it's "fair." Essentially what it boils down to is whether the work in question
has a transformative value, that in using the copied material along with
original material the copier has created a new work. That's generally the
rationale for criticism, parody and the like. The work incorporating the
copying has to have significant value beyond the simple copying. So a web page
which offers a critique of Gary Larson's comics will not be infringing if it
uses the comics to facilitate the critique. One of the factors in fair use,
however, is the amount of copied work in regards to original work, so copying
45 comics with a comment of "This is really funny" won't suffice.

>The problem with fair use and other aspects of copyright law is that it is
>usually determined on a case by case basis, and I can't think of anyone
>who will want to spend several thousands of dollars in court defending
>their web page.

Not entirely. Granted, every example will have its own merits and defenses,
but the argument can be made from prior cases. One thing that the Supreme
Court won't accept is "post hoc" rationales, so at the very least, the work
should have been intended to be something beyond the simple copying of Gary
Larson's comics.

Thank you for your time,
Sarah


SaThomp28

unread,
Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98
to

One quick note:

Gil <gi...@tamu.edu> wrote:

>If we take the stringent position of reading "the letter of the law" as
>the copyright notice stands, we would be guilty everytime more than one
>person in our home watched a movie that we bought at the store. After
>all, it becomes public exhibition.

No it doesn't. If everytime my husband and I watched a videotape that only he
made it was a copyright violation, the Copyright Act would be violating our
freedom of association rights under the first amendment. That's what allows us
to have a few friends over for a rented video every now and then. Courts have
made decisions concerning how far this right goes. Let me make an example.

You may know about the Federal laws that require property owners to rent to
people without regard to race, religion, etc. The freedom of association
prevents that from applying to some landlords. If I've got a room for rent in
my house, I can refuse to rent it to a African-American under freedom of
association. If I own an apartment building with 200 units, I can't refuse to
rent to an African American, because I can't claim association with everyone in
the place. The number of people in that instance is too large.

I'm not sure where the limit is, but I believe it's around 15. Courts have
made that distinction, so watch it when you invite 17 people over to watch a
tape. :)

Sarah

Tom Allard

unread,
Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98
to

Mary Jo Place wrote:
>
> Gil (gi...@tamu.edu) wrote:
> > I find everyone's critique of the subject very fascinating. I took some
> > intellectual law classes, and I was always under the impression that as
> > long as any copy made "for the private, personal use of the one who
> > makes the copy of the copyrighted material" was okay. Example... since
> > my Chevy truck has a tape deck, and I buy CD's, then if I copy a Seal
> > album onto a tape for my, and solely my, listening pleasure, that's
> > okay! It's when I decide to copy it and sell it that I cross legal
> > barriers (or, for that matter, if I give it away free).
>
> No, I don't think so. If you read any copyright notice on any book, movie,
> record or CD it pretty much flat-out states something along the lines of
> "no unauthorized copying or reproduction in any format without written
> permission from the publisher". I believe any copy is illegal, regardless
> of its purpose. I'm guessing the "home use" idea stems from the obvious--
> your chances of getting caught are almost nil, and your chances of going
> to court over it are even "niller". But technically I believe it is
> illegal, just as going above the posted speed limit is illegal. Everyone
> does it (except me, of course; I'm a perfect little angel) and you're only
> in trouble if you get caught and the cop's in a bad mood.

You have no legal training, yet you know the law better than what is
taught in intellectual law class. Do us all a favor and go read the
Copyright FAQ
(http://www.music.indiana.edu/tech_s/mla/legcom/faqtop.htm) before
posting further.

To answer the question, YES, you can LEGALLY make copies for personal
use. From the FAQ,
(http://www.music.indiana.edu/tech_s/mla/legcom/genq12.htm):

[Q:] Can't I assume that any copy made for my personal use is fair?

[A:] Generally, personal use has not been questioned. However,
disseminating
the results of personal use may not be a "fair" use.

Recent legislation (P.L. 102-563) has allowed for personal duplication
of
sound recordings for private, noncommercial use (see, for example,
H.R. Rep. 102-780, pt. 1, p. 20). (See also NACS & AAP guidebook)


> For what it's worth, my job here as an instructional technologist involves
> producing and using all forms of media for classroom instruction. Part of
> my job is telling faculty "uhhh, I don't think you can do that." So
> that's why I'm coming across as such a major rain on everyone's parade.

I urge you to educate yourself before you order others around. Your
self-described job skills are to pass out legal advice, on which you
were not trained.

> Also as a former journalist I have a pretty firm understanding of the
> business aspects of creative work, at least when it applies to print
> media, and I tend more toward protection of rights instead of the "do with
> it what you want" set. It's just a personal preference, but my answers
> will be slanted that way, which might seem needlessly conservative to
> those on the other side of the fence.

A former journalist, but not a former lawyer? Correct?

>
> Mary Jo Place
>
> ========================================================================
> Mary Jo Place | "This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere.
> Mount Holyoke College | Explain again how sheep's bladders may be
> mjp...@mhc.mtholyoke.edu | employed to prevent earthquakes."
> ========================================================================

--
rgds-- TA (tal...@frb.gov)
I don't speak for the Federal Reserve Board, it doesn't speak for me.
DO NOT SEND UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL EMAIL
pgp fingerprint: 10 49 F5 24 F1 D9 A7 D6 DE 14 25 C8 C0 E2 57 9D

hath...@stsci.edu

unread,
Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98
to


Thank you for clarifying this distinction.

Creators should benefit. Takers should pay. In practice it is possible
for creators to receive nothing from takers. The difference between
"should" and "is" is why we have laws.

magus

unread,
Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98
to

In article <199803252108...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
sath...@aol.com (SaThomp28) wrote:


> Fair use is an entirely different animal. Fair use is actually fairly well
> developed and specific. For example, criticism, comment, news reporting,
> teaching, scholarship or research fall within the bounds of fair use. There's
> also a test that a court will apply to a work in order to determine whether
> it's "fair." Essentially what it boils down to is whether the work in
question
> has a transformative value, that in using the copied material along with
> original material the copier has created a new work.

Try explain this to Marvel Comics. According to their legal department, no
Marvel material can appear on ANY website, regardless of the educational
content, news reporting, etc...being used.

They stated this was due to a 'deal' made with AOL. For some odd reason
they felt they didn't need to go into detail on what this 'deal' entailed.

When I asked how businesses that sell comics can get away with their
websites showing their characters they said they were 'too busy' to
explain the 'extensive criteria' used.

--
Several days ago I had dinner at a chinese restaurant with Dr. Martin JisCHke (President of Iowa State University.). I was amazed that an hour later I was again hungry for power.

some guy using

unread,
Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98
to

magus wrote:
>
> In article <199803252108...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> sath...@aol.com (SaThomp28) wrote:
>
> > Fair use is an entirely different animal. Fair use is actually fairly well
> > developed and specific. For example, criticism, comment, news reporting,
> > teaching, scholarship or research fall within the bounds of fair use.
...edtd...

> Try explain this to Marvel Comics. According to their legal department, no
> Marvel material can appear on ANY website, regardless of the educational
> content, news reporting, etc...being used.
>
> They stated this was due to a 'deal' made with AOL. For some odd reason
> they felt they didn't need to go into detail on what this 'deal' entailed.
>
> When I asked how businesses that sell comics can get away with their
> websites showing their characters they said they were 'too busy' to
> explain the 'extensive criteria' used.

He he he, I have a local service station that helpfully tells me if I
use any other brand of gas or oil my car could explode. It must be
true, it's in all their ads.
ragrice

Willyjd

unread,
Mar 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/27/98
to

>Creators? I thought Universal represented the Far Side..i may be wrong.

Creators does represent Gary Larson. I guess that makes you wrong. Hey,
there's a first for everything.

Jon Davis
General Manager, Creators.com
www.creators.com

Mwcartoons

unread,
Mar 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/29/98
to

In article <199803271934...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, wil...@aol.com
wrote:

>Creators does represent Gary Larson. I guess that makes you wrong. Hey,
>there's a first for everything.
>
>Jon Davis
>General Manager, Creators.com
>www.creators.com

Actually Jon, this makes me wrong for the tenth time, so thank you for giving
me some leeway.
The 1st time was when I got into animation. Believe me, I didn't see it
coming!
Another time was when I tried to spell tequila w/o spell-check.
A 3rd time was when I got suckered into playing babysitter for some middle
management execs at Warner Bros. Zzzz...
Then there was the time I actually allowed myself to be taken in by personal
notes from Tipper Gore...wooo...send me a privo email and I'll let you in on
THAT spicey one!
The 5th was probably when I suggested to fledgling cartoonists to buy Lee
Nordling's Book "Your Career in the Comics." [It should have been one hell of
a book if you could actually take what all those editors said about originality
and art seriously after comparing it to their actions.]
Then I guess the time I wasted to check out the latest strips from King and
United Media.
The 6th is probably getting on this newsgroup and actually following Lee and
Wiley's advice by saying exactly what's on my mind.
Probably another when I allowed myself to get the horribly mistaken impression
folks from the syndicates would *actually* post worthwhile insights into the
biz here.
8th was believing *all* the hand written notes.
9th and 10th is having read all those waste-of-time Lyman and Luann posts (The
secret was what again? Oh yeah! ...he's not gay/he's interested in a
different woman...and Lyman was really missed by how many people?)

To menstruation, and this man in his period,
pg

Peter Davis

unread,
Mar 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/30/98
to

On 24 Mar 1998 03:37:23 GMT, Ian McDonald <ianm...@avalon.nf.ca> wrote:
> While I was at the Creators Syndicate website, I came across the
> following. Ithought you all might be interested in reading it, especially
> those of you with Far Side tribute pages.
>
>
> A NOTE FROM GARY LARSON
>
>
> RE: Online Use of Far Side Cartoons
>
> TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
>
> I'm walking a fine line here.
>
.
. <stuff deleted>
.
>
> Most respectfully,
>
> Gary Larson

>
>
> I'm not sure what to make of this message. On the one hand, I feel that
> you have to respect Larson's wishes. If you're a true fan of The Far
> Side, you should (I believe) do as he asks.

Um, Ian? Did you have permission to post the entire text of that
message?


--
Peter Davis
http://world.std.com/~pd

"Boycott intrusive advertisers!"

Ian McDonald

unread,
Mar 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/31/98
to

Hey wiseguy, the question you should be asking yourself is, did you have
permission to re-post any of MY original message?

My lawyer will soon be getting in touch with your lawyer...

;-)

Ian

milton....@eng.sun.com

unread,
Mar 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/31/98
to

In article <199803291044...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
--

YOU are a rascal.

* * * * * * * *

A brief note on copyrights: Nobody knows what's going on any more. Laws
were changed several times in the last twenty years. Recent Court decisions
are in serious conflict. The Internet has ripped to shreds what little
sanity was left. Lawyers can still send you letters; but they just don't
mean the same thing that they used to.

The legal concept of "fair use" is still a good guide, I think. "fair
use" means you have the right to discuss anything you want to discuss,
and can include a sample of the original work in order to clarify and
exemplify the discussion points you make.

If "fair use" weren't a pretty solid legal principle, then large movie
studios would quickly bankrupt every movie critic in the country. They
can't; because "fair use" is beyond lawsuits. No matter how much damage
a Movie studio might think a Critic has done to their movie property,
they can't sue for recovery.

SO: If you use only a few Larson cartoons and your site is free and
not selling anything, then I don't think you should have a problem.

* * * * * * * *

I occasionally sell a cartoon. HALF the times I have wound up in print,
it was because a respectable Newspaper Editor ripped me off. One time
(In CB Magazine) I even "won" a First Place prize in a cartoon contest,
but the prize went to the guy who took the credit; not to me-- even
though I signed and copyrighted my work!

There was never anything much I could do, because my damages
were never high enough to interest a lawyer. Comics Journal is full
of stories like this. This is really the way the law works, folks.


milton brewster


-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

Michael Vezie

unread,
Mar 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/31/98
to

In article <6frmkj$c1r$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,

<milton....@eng.sun.com> wrote:
>The legal concept of "fair use" is still a good guide, I think. "fair
>use" means you have the right to discuss anything you want to discuss,
>and can include a sample of the original work in order to clarify and
>exemplify the discussion points you make.

Fair use is the difference between "Gary Larson has had some very
funny panels with cows. Here is a good example of how Gary Larson
treats cows." and "I've just scanned in all my Far Side books, and
here are all the images that will fit in my web page allotment."
The first is legit because you're writing your own work (a critique
of Gary Larson's treatment of cows), and using his work as an example,
and the second is a wholesale copyright infringement.


>SO: If you use only a few Larson cartoons and your site is free and
>not selling anything, then I don't think you should have a problem.

Free isn't the point, and never has been. Arguably, a case can be
made for quantity (in order to uphold fair use). But that just
helps protect against legal action, which probably won't happen
anyway (unless someone is really flagrant).

The real point is, why would anyone, if they admire someone, go out
of their way to hurt them? Gary Larson has made it clear that he
doesn't like web pages showing his stuff. So if you like him and
his work, why try to hurt him? His impassioned plea should be
enough to make any true fan clean up their pages. To do otherwise
puts the webmaster at the same level as a stalker.


>I occasionally sell a cartoon. HALF the times I have wound up in print,
>it was because a respectable Newspaper Editor ripped me off. One time
>(In CB Magazine) I even "won" a First Place prize in a cartoon contest,
>but the prize went to the guy who took the credit; not to me-- even
>though I signed and copyrighted my work!
>
>There was never anything much I could do, because my damages
>were never high enough to interest a lawyer. Comics Journal is full
>of stories like this. This is really the way the law works, folks.

I presume you didn't enjoy "winning" first place either, yes? All
the more reason to encourage people to respect works, and not try
to hurt the artists.

In Christ,
Michael

0 new messages