The SSS. (This is where all your innards sink!)
Nathan G.
are questioning themselves, etc.
The "Secret Sabrina Society."
The following was posted by Priest22 in the "Skunkettes" Yahoo! Group
(of which Eric Schwartz is a member) and is already spreading to others.
He obviously doesn't want it to be a secret anymore.
I have also included a history of the SSS that Priest22 posted shortly
before.
==========
This letter should only be read by those interested in the subject of
the Secret Sabrina Society.
My thoughts on the SSS subject - I have a phrase. It's "you can justify
anything with words, even if you're dead wrong".
E.S., Babs Bunny, myself, and lots of other people here are very good at
getting our opinion across so that others will take our side in a
subject. We present intelligent, compelling words to support whatever we
are debating about at the time. This subject however isn't really debate
material. There are only really two things to consider.
1. E.S. owns Sabrina, and he doesn't want naughty art of her
2. People love to see and draw forbidden erotic Sabrina art
It all comes down to how you feel about it morally. Does having Sabrina
erotica outweigh the fact that Eric will be upset, and you will be doing
something wrong?
I have decided that my answer is yes.
I am reopening the Secret Sabrina Society in email format.
What I am doing is wrong, and directly against an artist's wishes. This
is not the path for everyone, and I would ask you to think long and hard
before you conduct yourself in a manner such as I am. He is right and I
am wrong; let there be no mistake.
That being said, I will also not listen to reason or opinions on this
subject.
--The Secret Sabrina Society--
Being that it is no longer a secret, it might seem odd to keep the name
the same as before. The reason is actually a change in how things are
going to be run. All email addresses of members will be supressed in
mailings, and there will no longer be a visible member list.
Here are a few more changes for the reopening -
All art contributed to the society cannot be removed - even at the
artists' request. (this comes about because E.S. contacted the old
members to try to get them to remove their art off of the official web
page.)
There will never again be a web page. This will be conducted through
private email.
Artists submitting art will have their name struck from the pieces that
they do so that it makes it much harder to identify the artist.
Artists found distributing images into public forum will be removed from
mailings without notice.
Artists found sending images to friends who are not members will be
removed from mailings without notice.
--a few questions answered--
For all of you who wrote to me to ask if I still have all the images
from the soceity, the answer is yes.
No, I will not send them to anyone unless they are a member.
--How to join--
[Removed]
--Where to submit images--
[Removed]
--How do I get access to the societys' images?--
[Removed]
Eric - you know exactly what is going on now. I am not doing this to
prove a point or be an ass, but because I am too weak to resist the
temptation of more Sabrina erotica.
This ends it,
Priest22 out
==========
The following is a history of the SSS posted shortly before the above in
the same group by Priest22.
==========
This is a History of the Secret Sabrina Society. It's long - so if you
don't care, don't read it.
Long before I knew who she was, people were drawing erotic pictures of
Sabrina from Sabrina online.
I am sure that everyone here knows who Sabrina is, so I won't bother
telling you about her.
It all started after the infamous "Sabrina Online 24 hours" picture was
uploaded to one of the Egroups I was moderating. If you have never seen
this picture, it's a picture of Sabrina playing with herself in front of
a camera with Tabitha watching from the side of her bed (It was drawn by
B.A.S.F. whos actual name I will not use).
There was a huge outcry from the group - people who loved it and people
who hated it. Not many people ever get the chance to see erotic Sabrina
Online art, and it drew quite a bit of attention. There were lots of
members of the Fans Of Sabrina Online who joined my group and started
threatening legal actions and such if the picture wasn't removed. The
picture was, and it all died down.
The next picture like that I saw was from Toonpimp. He drew a cute
little naked Sabrina saying "Sorry Eric, I'm not a tease anymore". He
didn't post it to my group, so I don't know the exact story, but
whatever happened, someone said something to him that made him freak out
rather badly. When I first started to talk to him, he was convinced that
I was some sort of mole sent to screw him over...but more about all that
later.
I had started reading Sabrina Online back...well, it was a long time
ago. I had always wanted to draw her nude, but never really decided to
put her down on paper till I saw what these other artists had been able
to do with her. I had to draw her at that point...it just got to be a
need. I had intended for only a few of my friends to see the picture (I
wasn't going to release it to the public like the other artists did and
have all those problems) but I knew it would eventually get out. A
friend of mine suggested that I send a copy to Eric Schwartz and explain
to him that is was just a private picture for a couple of my friends. It
sounded like a good idea, and I did. He was very nice about it, and my
friends got to see what I had drawn.
Everything was going great - no threats, no crazed Sabrina fans, no
flame war - and then I screwed up. I had forgotten to write to someone I
hadn't talked to in a while, and he asked me for a copy (he shall remain
nameless). The only problem was that he had written to me from my
egroup...and I hit "reply" to his letter and sent the picture. If you
don't know what this means, let me explain. Because I replied to the
Egroup instead of just to him, my piece of private art got posted to my
ENTIRE BLOODY EGROUP.
It wasn't big, only about 200 or so members, but that was MORE than
enough people to get me into serious trouble. I tried to do damage
control by sending out a note to the egroup asking everyone that they
not distribute my image and deleting the letter from the archives
themselves. I knew it was no good, but there was nothing else I could do
at that point. Surprisingly, there wasn't any backlash from anywhere. I
guess people realized that it was a mistake that happened, and it had
been cleaned up as best as it could.
--------------the society----------------
It was shortly after this happened that a strange thing began to happen:
I started to recieve emails from people who had drawn naughty Sabrina
art. There were only a couple of pictures sent to me originally, but
other people had collections of naughty Sabrina stuff to share also. I
got a few more emails and some comments on what was good and what was
bad with the picture I had drawn.
I was thrilled - this was great! I have always had a rather profound
attraction to Sabby, and now I was getting all sorts of goodies in the
mail with her on them.
I decided to tell my egroup what was going on. I wrote a note telling
everyone that "It's like some secret society of artists who draw Naughty
Sabrina art!".
I got a letter the next day about someone who wanted to join the Secret
Sabrina Society...it seems that people had misread what I typed and
thought that there actually WAS a Secret Sabrina Society.
WELL...
It took me a couple of minutes to think about what to write back to him,
and then I decided "what the hell?" and wrote:
-The Secret Sabrina Society-
The only way that someone may join the Secret Sabrina Society is if they
draw a naughty picture of Sabrina from Sabrina Online (this was later
amended to allow people in if they got a friend to draw the art, or
commissioned it from an artist).
Once you have sent in your work, you will be added to the member list
and have a copy of all images stored in the society sent to you.
---
And that is how things got started. I wrote up the rules, the official
membership letter, and put all my Sabrina Art into one directory labeled
"SSS".
All I had to do then was wait...and it didn't take any time at all. I
got more letters asking how to join, and after a while I started to get
Sabrina Nudes sent to me.
I kept moderating things - sending out pictures to new members and
adding names to the list, and things worked perfectly like that for a
while.
----the fall---
The thing about the Society is that it worked like the Mile High Club -
you do it and you're in, even if you don't know it.
I was starting to get pictures sent in that people had found floating
around on the net. I decided to try to contact as many of them as I
could and let them know that they were part of the society. A couple I
never did contact, but a majority of them I was able to find after a few
web searches.
Not one person that I contacted refused to be a member (except Eric
Schwartz - he was actually an official member, but I thought it would be
a bad idea to tell him that) and we got two of the biggest contributors
to the society that way. One of them must draw in his sleep as he had a
massive amount of art to donate, and the other did some of the best
drawings of Sabrina doing...things...that I had seen till then.
I thought about sending out a huge email full of all this new art to
everyone, and then just decided that the Society had a home on a web
page.
That was the single biggest mistake I ever made with the Society.
I made a new page and got an account on another server to upload the art
to. I linked up the graphics, created thumbnails, downloaded a
javascript password utility, and sent out letters to all the members
about the new place.
I made it VERY CLEAR on the main page that no one but the members
themselves must ever know the location of this page, or the password to
get into the art areas...
It was great at first. I had it arranged so that you could see
thumbnails under the artsts' name of all the stuff he had done, and
people were drawing all sorts of new stuff for the society now. After
being asked I even set up a Tabitha section for the members who had
drawn her (I set up a seperate page for that all together as I didn't
want people to HAVE to look at it - they would have to click a link to
see it.
Then I started to get new people sending in art - and the club was once
again growing. I even let someone who had done a cute alteration of one
of E.S.'s pieces in.
It lasted exactly five days. On the fifth day, I recieved this letter -
-----------------------
I thought I'd let you know your secret society is not particularly
secret. I found out about it and was able to gather the images and
information about the artists, and I have little to no hacking skills.
If I can rummage around in your exclusive little club, your security
must not be that great. I think you already know what I would like you
to do, but I doubt you have any respect for me, my work, or my
characters, so I'll be keeping my eye on you from now on.
You've got some angry people creeping up on you,
Eric W. Schwartz
---------------
Well, that ended it. The whole reason that the Society was a secret in
the first place was that so HE wouldn't find out. It also proved that
there was no way I could password the page to keep people out (the
javascript was obviously useless)
Someone had told the wrong person, and now Eric Schwartz was pissed off
at us. I had never intended on pissing off ANYONE, and now...well, it
was time to close shop.
I wrote back a letter saying that I would take it down right away, and
he was very nice about things after that.
I moved the page, renamed the index so that people couldn't get in, and
put up a notice. I got a letter a couple of days later from Eric asking
that I take everything down off the server (I had left the pictures - I
guessed that he had made a copy of the S.S.S. graphics page and tried
clicking the links)
After much debate (those damn things too forever to upload) I went ahead
and did as he asked.
It wasn't until later that I learned that he had sent each artist on the
list a letter about taking their stuff down. I don't know his reason to
do this, but he must not have thought that I would comply with his
demands.
I thought about this all for a long time. The fact that there was a leak
somewhere, the fact that we were not secret and the one man I hadn't
wanted to find out had somehow gotten into the member list...it made me
decide to dissolve the Society for good.
---the lessons---
I don't really care how you might judge what I did. I have my own moral
code, and it's not what someone else thinks. I was willing to do all
this out of a desire to see more of Sabrina. Sabrina the untouchable -
Sabrina the off limits. It made me just want to do it even worse...
I did not however want any confrontation. This was something between
artists, and wasn't supposed to be anything more than that.
I decided to relate this story after Naughty Sabrina started to pop up.
I wanted to say something actually when the Mouse girls got flamed by
that one Rabid fan of Erics about lawsuits. I don't approve of these
tactics, not in the least.
The one thing I would like to let everyone know is that you can say
ANYTHING online. It doesn't matter if it's true or not. That is the
greatest weapon of any of the Rabid Sabrina fan who can't be bothered to
ask people nicely to remove pictures. You will get shouts about
lawsuits, getting sued, burning in hell, etc...and in the end, it's all
a lie. Just because they say "Oh yes, of course he can do that" doesn't
mean anything.
Maybe it IS time for daddy to let his girl go...and maybe it's time for
us artists to stop trying to get our hands in her panties on the first
date...I don't know.
Perhaps it's just time to stop listening to the other side and go do our
own thing...and maybe someone will realize one day that it's all silly
anyway.
end
==========
Tamar
for violating copyright laws. what, you think artist create characters and
give them personalities just so "fans" can do whatever the hell they want
with them? and it was bad enough that they screwed with sabrina but
tabitha? what kind of sick fuck are you and "artists", if thats what hey
call themselves, to want to draw adult pictures of a child. its idiots
like you that make real artists want to pack up shop and call "furry"
quits.
what a ass.
Tamar
"Nathan G." <jna...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3B4B2C69...@hotmail.com...
Brian O'connell
abortion who started an eGroup for furry erotica who illegally reposted
artwork from many artists (including my own) to his group... Making matters
worst is his general "Fuck you, I'm going to do whatever I want" attitude
whenever told he does not, in fact, own the rights to said artwork...
I still say that artists should start a legal defense fund (similar to
the legal defense fund for artists under legal scrutiny, but to cover the
opposite problems)... I doubt that the majority of image thieves have
immense amounts of money whereas damages could be claimed, but the pay porn
sites and whatnot who steal furry adult art could easily be worth quite a
hefty penny in damages...
If a class action lawsuit could be issued against Yahoo for their
eGroups violations, they could (a) learn to enforce their anti copyright
infringement practices for real (instead of their practice of stating "Show
us the library of congress paperwork and we *might* do something about it"),
or (b) you could get some REAL damages from Yahoo for their refusal to
enforce said copyright laws...
If just 10% of the furries (or other genres) could contribute to the
funds, there could also be a sufficient amount to retain legal counsel...
But I guess the majority have more of a major hardon for getting free
artwork than they do for making sure the artists' rights are protected (and
thusly have some semblance of faith in their audience, sufficient at least
to ensure they continue producing without the fear of their work being
stolen)... Take a look at Priest22's membership listings for his furry
eGroups and you'll see how many support his actions... Maybe being served
with a supoena (sp?) would make them think twice...
--
Reverse the e-mail's spelling to reply...
If you cannot think for yourself, it doesn't entitle you to think for me...
"Nathan G." <jna...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3B4B2C69...@hotmail.com...
> Well, here we go. Word is spreading, questions are being asked, people
> are questioning themselves, etc.
>
> The "Secret Sabrina Society."
>
> The following was posted by Priest22 in the "Skunkettes" Yahoo! Group
> (of which Eric Schwartz is a member) and is already spreading to others.
> He obviously doesn't want it to be a secret anymore.
>
> I have also included a history of the SSS that Priest22 posted shortly
> before.
>
<snip>
Noitaroproc
10 Jul 2001:
> or maybe its time for sick fucks like you to feel the pitch of legal
> fines for violating copyright laws. what, you think artist create
> characters and give them personalities just so "fans" can do whatever
> the hell they want with them? and it was bad enough that they screwed
> with sabrina but tabitha? what kind of sick fuck are you and
> "artists", if thats what hey call themselves, to want to draw adult
> pictures of a child. its idiots like you that make real artists want
> to pack up shop and call "furry" quits.
>
> what a ass.
>
> Tamar
>
Maybe you need to re-read the message. Nathan G is not Priest22.
--
Noitaroproc the Anthro Fox
DC: DC2.H^Mcf Gm L6f W T Sku Cbk A- Fr++"mango" Nu M(rv++) O F R+ Ac+++ J+
S- U--- I V Q Tc+
Nathan G.
like it either, Tamar.
-Nathan G.
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
TT
Cerulean
bad. Even the most evil people in history did what they did because
they thought what they were doing was right. Violators of intellectual
property rights are constantly telling us that they aren't doing
anything wrong, and I understand why that's their worldview even if I
strongly disagree with them. But here we see one who says,
point-blank, "I know it's wrong. I believe it's wrong. And I'm going
to keep doing it." How does anyone think like that?
--
___vvz /( Cerulean = Kevin Pease http://cerulean.st/
<__,` Z / ( DC2.~D GmAL~W-R+++Ac~J+S+Fr++IH$M-V+++Cbl,spu
`~~~) )Z) ( FDDmp4adwsA+++$C+D+HM+P-RT+++WZSm#
/ (7 ( S>J37) - ,,'a)ew!J6 ay+ 77!> ue) 6u!y+oN,,
Fal Leac
characters image. No one has the right to violate copyright laws.
Not only does portraying Sabrina erotically destroy her character... it could
also make Eric angry enough to discontinue his comic... I don't think anybody
really wants that.
Fanart is unavoidable, but if you don't respect the artist who created the
art... your not a fan...
Keep Sabrina Clean!!!
Robin Fal Leac, Pray for peace in Northern Ireland... God bless.
(Fal Leac is pronounced F-lack in Gaelic)
Doodles
Okay, so folks scream at Yahoo that Eric Schwartz' characters are getting
ripped off and that they need to police the groups and clubs better. So
they go after the group and anything else that might be violating
copyrights.
Then Yahoo sees http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/tdktoonhentai
Personally, I don't want to see the above group go. But then it's difficult
for me to reconcile that with what's happening to Eric's creations and say
"This is right, but _that's_ just sick!" My own stomach's limit was reached
not too many weeks ago, when someone on one of the fur.* groups requested
erotica based on the cubs in "Between the Lions." But what am I supposed to
do? Go into conniptions, yell and shout to the rafters about this between
scans for Lola Bunny hentai?
I don't have an answer. I'm still trying to define the _question._
Tamar
here and start from scratch. but thats just me.
Tamar
"Fal Leac" <fal...@aol.comEire> wrote in message
news:20010710153142...@ng-ff1.aol.com...
Tamar
"Doodles" <dood...@cheesies.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:9ifmi3$a33$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
Tamar
"Noitaroproc" <sc...@you.com> wrote in message
news:Xns90DA8D200B...@198.99.146.10...
Nathan G.
Eric, who obviously cares a lot for his characters, get such disrespect. I don't
like what is going on here and I won't support it. I'm on Eric's side.
But then it brings up other questions. I have displayed my drawings of WB,
Disney, and Sega characters. Of course, many who are also on Eric's side
(including Eric) have, too. Hypocrasy? You bet. Then again, that's humanity for
you. It's virtually impossible NOT to be hypocratic on SOME level. There's grey
areas abound.
I'm not justifying the SSS. That is the last thing I would do. I don't believe
in it. It just brings up a lot of questions. I guess it's mostly about the
blatant disrespect toward an individual artist and his character.
-Nathan G.
Tamar
he would have this priest guy's attitude about it. but then its up to you
"fans". if you really do care about the character then don't support this
guy and sniff him out. i mean think about it, what if eric got depressed
enough about it and said, screw this i don't have to take this stress, and
the next sol has her and tabetha hit by a bus in a accident? extreme? you
bet but if thats what he's got to do to gain control of his own
character....
honestly though, why would a so called fan want to take the joyu away from
the persson that created and continues to feed what he's a fan about? it
makes no sense.
tamar
"Nathan G." <jna...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3B4B686B...@hotmail.com...
Caveman Joe
I'm still chuckling.
--
Like the echoes of your childhood laughter, ever after...
Like the first time love urged you to take its guidance, in silence...
Like your heartbeat when you realise you're dying, but you're trying...
Like the way we cry for a happy ending...
I know...
http://www.furnation.com/cmj
http://clik.to/cmj
(remove "naespamtaverymuchmatey" from my address if you want to send me
mail)
"Nathan G." <jna...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3B4B2C69...@hotmail.com...
DishRoom1
>at least lola is an adult character, i mean come on, tabetha?
>
>
Also I find inner-sibling sex to be as sick crap as below-teen child porn.
John Shughart
DishRoom1
>It's really difficult, isn't it, Doodles? I don't like to see an artist like
>Eric, who obviously cares a lot for his characters, get such disrespect. I
>don't
>like what is going on here and I won't support it. I'm on Eric's side.
>
>But then it brings up other questions. I have displayed my drawings of WB,
>Disney, and Sega characters. Of course, many who are also on Eric's side
>(including Eric) have, too. Hypocrasy? You bet. Then again, that's humanity
>for
>you. It's virtually impossible NOT to be hypocratic on SOME level. There's
>grey
>areas abound.
I myself wouldn't draw anyone else's copyright characters for public display,
and I wouldn't but them in a way that would have decreeted the original
creators' intent for them.
To this very day I am not amused of the porn images some creep puts online of
Disney characters, especially of those from films from Walt's time. I've
watched enough of the old Disney films to notice they seem to have a deep
personal touch on them somehow, which seemed to have come from Walt and his
animators. Depicting those characters in pron doesn't abode well with good
natured character Walt gave those characters.
John Shughart
Nathan G.
> screw this i don't have to take this stress...
I'm concerned something like that will happen as well. We've seen similar things
happen with other artists.
> honestly though, why would a so called fan want to take the joyu away from
> the persson that created and continues to feed what he's a fan about? it
> makes no sense.
I've had exactly those thoughts. I agree. It doesn't make sense.
-Nathan G.
Nathan G.
That's a relief. I was getting worried for a moment. I've said a lot of things,
but I hope it's been clear that I do NOT support the SSS or "fans" that
criticize Eric for being protective of his characters.
-Nathan G.
PeterCat
> I still say that artists should start a legal defense fund
> (similar to the legal defense fund for artists under legal
> scrutiny, but to cover the opposite problems)... I doubt that the
> majority of image thieves have immense amounts of money whereas
> damages could be claimed, but the pay porn sites and whatnot who
> steal furry adult art could easily be worth quite a hefty penny
> in damages...
I guess that would be a legal prosecution fund, instead of defense, as
in this case it's not the artists (character creators) who have violated
the law. But that sounds weird. Let's call it a "legal protection fund,"
and put me down for $100. Who wants to match contributions?
> If just 10% of the furries (or other genres) could contribute to
> the funds, there could also be a sufficient amount to retain
> legal counsel... But I guess the majority have more of a major
> hardon for getting free artwork than they do for making sure the
> artists' rights are protected (and thusly have some semblance of
> faith in their audience, sufficient at least to ensure they
> continue producing without the fear of their work being
> stolen)... Take a look at Priest22's membership listings for his
> furry eGroups and you'll see how many support his actions...
> Maybe being served with a supoena (sp?) would make them think
> twice...
It reminds me of Napster, there are too many goddam kids (and mental
kids) who see a way to get things for free without understanding the
underlying economic structure and the system that makes it possible to
create the {music, characters} in the first place. If this Priest22 is
out of his teens, I'd be surprised. Time for the grownups to put a stop
to it.
--
The Furry InfoPage! http://www.tigerden.com/infopage/furry/
pete...@Furry.fan.org (PeterCat) Rhal on FurryMUCK (come cuddle!)
--
"I can't believe what he's doing with those shiitake mushrooms!"
Watch "Iron Chef," Fridays and Saturdays at 10pm (ET) on Food Network!
Brian O'connell
furry or otherwise, a larger than ever legal resource for avoiding being
ripped off in any circle... However, I can say with all honesty that I
haven't the discipline or responsibility for the funds, so who would act as
treasurer? Other than
that...
We need to work up a battle plan and tactics... The "I swear you aren't
coming here for evidence" disclaimer they make you agree to isn't legally
binding, no more legally binding than the thief who claims the cops have no
right to search his house when they run his stolen car's tags through the
computer...
We need *everyone* who can to go in and dig up evidence, and secondly ,
by using a credit card to gain membership to pay sites with
toon/anime/furry, which always seem to fall into the same category... These
methods of taking stock of evidence (get an inexpensive rechargable credit
card so if anyone swipes the number, no major loss of funds or risk of
credit fraud) will work...
Most importantly, while the artist can take inventory of his or her
work, the most valuable information is the material that can be corroborated
by unbiased witnesses... This can work two ways for us... If you really want
to be an utter bastard, on top of opening lawsuits against the site owners,
you can also relay URL's for copyrighted character fanart from the websites
to their respective owners...
Imagine how they'd shut these sites down when a hoard of rampaging
lawyers from both sides of the fence come after them... Disney, furries, and
WB oh my!
--
Reverse the e-mail's spelling to reply...
If you cannot think for yourself, it doesn't entitle you to think for me...
"PeterCat" <pete...@furry.fan.org> wrote in message
news:petercat-C0BF18...@news.chameleon.net...
> "Brian O'connell" <1lla...@tsewq.ten> wrote:
>
> I guess that would be a legal prosecution fund, instead of defense, as
> in this case it's not the artists (character creators) who have violated
> the law. But that sounds weird. Let's call it a "legal protection fund,"
> and put me down for $100. Who wants to match contributions?
>
Doodles
news:tkmo90e...@corp.supernews.com...
> at least lola is an adult character, i mean come on, tabetha?
As Robert Crumb has said, "It's all just lines on paper, folks!" Do I like
it? No. But am I able to honestly say something about it? Beats the hell
out of me.
slu...@earthlink.net
>
> I always believed that there were no real people who were deliberately
> bad. Even the most evil people in history did what they did because
> they thought what they were doing was right. Violators of intellectual
> property rights are constantly telling us that they aren't doing
> anything wrong, and I understand why that's their worldview even if I
> strongly disagree with them. But here we see one who says,
> point-blank, "I know it's wrong. I believe it's wrong. And I'm going
> to keep doing it." How does anyone think like that?
Kinda flies right in the face of the theory that no one is evil,
don't that?
A theory I happen to think is bunk, however. Uh, no offense.
Jace
> I always believed that there were no real people who were deliberately
> bad. Even the most evil people in history did what they did because
> they thought what they were doing was right. Violators of intellectual
> property rights are constantly telling us that they aren't doing
> anything wrong, and I understand why that's their worldview even if I
> strongly disagree with them. But here we see one who says,
> point-blank, "I know it's wrong. I believe it's wrong. And I'm going
> to keep doing it." How does anyone think like that?
Well, first you start with a head shaped like a corkscrew...
Actually, the attitude you describe probably isn't that uncommon...
there are probably thieves who know it's wrong, believe it's wrong,
but keep doing because they need money or whatever.
And parachutists _have_ to know their favourite sport is dangerous,
but _they_ keep doing it.
Priest22, however... he's saying "I know it's wrong. I believe it's
wrong. I have absolutely no justifiable reason to do it. And I'm going
to keep doing it."
So, anyway, first you start with a head shaped like a corkscrew. This
is important because that way the brain is the right shape, and hence,
so is the mind....
---
Jace
ja...@softhome.net
ICQ# 4654209
http://sydewinder.tripod.com/default.html
falcon.cc.ukans.edu/~qandrews
Freeform fantasy RP
Jace
Jace
<1lla...@tsewq.ten> wrote:
> Personally I'm not surprised, this 'Priest22' is the same walking
> abortion who started an eGroup for furry erotica who illegally reposted
> artwork from many artists (including my own) to his group... Making matters
> worst is his general "Fuck you, I'm going to do whatever I want" attitude
> whenever told he does not, in fact, own the rights to said artwork...
Hell yeah... and surprisingly, he seems to be popular elsewhere... I
mean, I seem to recall seeing that he won a competition at SMT...
*blinks*
> I still say that artists should start a legal defense fund (similar to
> the legal defense fund for artists under legal scrutiny, but to cover the
> opposite problems)... I doubt that the majority of image thieves have
> immense amounts of money whereas damages could be claimed, but the pay porn
> sites and whatnot who steal furry adult art could easily be worth quite a
> hefty penny in damages...
>
> If a class action lawsuit could be issued against Yahoo for their
> eGroups violations, they could (a) learn to enforce their anti copyright
> infringement practices for real (instead of their practice of stating "Show
> us the library of congress paperwork and we *might* do something about it"),
> or (b) you could get some REAL damages from Yahoo for their refusal to
> enforce said copyright laws...
>
> If just 10% of the furries (or other genres) could contribute to the
> funds, there could also be a sufficient amount to retain legal counsel...
> But I guess the majority have more of a major hardon for getting free
> artwork than they do for making sure the artists' rights are protected (and
> thusly have some semblance of faith in their audience, sufficient at least
> to ensure they continue producing without the fear of their work being
> stolen)... Take a look at Priest22's membership listings for his furry
> eGroups and you'll see how many support his actions... Maybe being served
> with a supoena (sp?) would make them think twice...
While I admit I like having free pics, especially yours, Brian, I find
that kind of behaviour (Priest22's) reprehensible. If I _had_ the
money, I certainly would pay for the odd print or commission, and I'd
sign up to quite a few good pay sites...
Ah, if wishes were fishes.
Plus, what costs you $25 over there comes to over $50 here... which is
not an excuse to do nothing, but a reason to be careful about it.
What I'm trying to say is, although I support the idea of the fund, I,
for one, can't contribute. I may sound like an ass for saying so, but
at least you know my position (ok, I'm starting to sound full of
myself), instead of me keeping silent and letting you draw your own
conclusions.
But I seriously wish you the best of luck in frying his ass over an
open flame.
Doodles
> then again i'm sure if wb ccame to him and politely asked him to remove it
> he would have this priest guy's attitude about it.
I believe you meant to say he _wouldn't_ have the same attitude. I don't
know and can't say. Shall we ask Bob Guthrie his opinion? I've heard Bob
say he's hardly happy about what's been done with Lola, first by WB and then
by fans.
> i mean think about it, what if eric got depressed enough about it and
said,
> screw this i don't have to take this stress, and the next sol has her and
> tabetha hit by a bus in a accident? extreme? you bet but if thats what
he's
> got to do to gain control of his own character....
You mean, the way Robert Crumb icepicked Fritz the Cat? Note that this
resulted in him going in a completely new direction that was far better work
than what had gone before, so who knows if this would have a bad result.
But his doing that would really be the wrong action. It wouldn't give him
control, it would be his giving up the characters to the people like
Priest22, which is anything but what most of Sabrina's fans want. [Besides,
if you think things are bad now, just wait until they break out with Sabrina
necrophila pics. Bleagh.]
> honestly though, why would a so called fan want to take the joyu away
from
> the persson that created and continues to feed what he's a fan about? it
> makes no sense.
Based on what I've heard people say when creating slash fiction of various
things like Star Trek, it's often a power trip. A way of wresting control
for yourself from the creator. It also is a measurement of the vitality of
a creation, because you want to see more of this character's life, but since
the original creator/s only have so much time in the day, you seek other
sources for your fix.
Hmmm... Now that one thinks of it, that sounds like stalking.
Forgive the randomness of these thoughts. As I said, I'm still trying to
define the question, much less the answer, and no offense is meant towards
yourself. I don't know how this will turn out, but I wish Eric the best.
Jace
<dood...@cheesies.pacbell.net> wrote:
> "Tamar" <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:tkmred4...@corp.supernews.com...
> > then again i'm sure if wb ccame to him and politely asked him to remove it
> > he would have this priest guy's attitude about it.
>
> I believe you meant to say he _wouldn't_ have the same attitude. I don't
> know and can't say. Shall we ask Bob Guthrie his opinion? I've heard Bob
> say he's hardly happy about what's been done with Lola, first by WB and then
> by fans.
Lara Croft is a similar issue, i think....
<snip>
> But his doing that would really be the wrong action. It wouldn't give him
> control, it would be his giving up the characters to the people like
> Priest22, which is anything but what most of Sabrina's fans want. [Besides,
> if you think things are bad now, just wait until they break out with Sabrina
> necrophila pics. Bleagh.]
Plus, when you think about it, these things only have the continuity
that the artist defines... if we agree to it.
What I mean is... say Eric dirt-naps Sabrina. How exactly will that
stop anyone with the inclination from creating more nude pictures of
her? It's not like live actors, where a TV character would be
discontinued if the actor died.
Tamar
and not when one of its members uses another person's personal fursona in an
adult situation with tabetha is it just lines on paper. you can't get any
more personal than that.
"Doodles" <dood...@cheesies.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:9ig83v$bk3$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
Brian O'connell
where miscellaneous artists can list off the sites that they authorized to
repro their artwork... In the last case of the adult furry art eGroup, I
pounded on them as hard as I could for redistributing James Hardimann's
artwork, when in fact he was the one who authorized it in the first place...
It'll be pretty simple, basically a case of (a) artist's name, and (b)
URL/website authorized for art postings from said artist's name... That way
we absolve ourselves of any wrongdoing, and save them the hassles of finding
new forums to post their materials (and the hassles of legitimate sites
running authorized artwork et al)...
Doodles
news:an8pktcrin1c6ccut...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 18:29:54 -0700, "Doodles"
> <dood...@cheesies.pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > But his doing that would really be the wrong action. It wouldn't give
him
> > control, it would be his giving up the characters to the people like
> > Priest22, which is anything but what most of Sabrina's fans want.
[Besides,
> > if you think things are bad now, just wait until they break out with
Sabrina
> > necrophila pics. Bleagh.]
>
> Plus, when you think about it, these things only have the continuity
> that the artist defines... if we agree to it.
And in some cases, the creator gets pushed in a direction kept resisting but
had to go to after the insistence of fans, only to find the fans had the
right idea. Like when Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote "The Final Problem" and
Sherlock Holmes' legions of fans cried out "NO IT BLOODY ISN'T!" =};-3
Sabrina is pretty, smart and sexy in her own way. Innocence is nice, but...
She works at a porn studio and her boss has hit on her in the past. Even if
nothing else ever takes place, you _know_ these are the sort of dreams Zig
Zag is having about her. Certainly the way Eric's played the story to this
point indicates such. For all intents and purposes, that's how I'd look at
these images: wishful thinking on ZZ's part, nothing more.
[But I ain't down with messing with Tabitha. No way in hell.]
> What I mean is... say Eric dirt-naps Sabrina. How exactly will that
> stop anyone with the inclination from creating more nude pictures of
> her? It's not like live actors, where a TV character would be
> discontinued if the actor died.
And with the near-instant distribution channels available nowadays, what
prevents this material from growing until it swamps the original idea?
Frightening thought, no? It's why I hope Eric doesn't make a rash decision
to do something so drastic. But since said decision _is_ Eric's, all I can
do is wish him my best and hope that things somehow work out.
DishRoom1
>> control, it would be his giving up the characters to the people like
>> Priest22, which is anything but what most of Sabrina's fans want.
>[Besides,
>> if you think things are bad now, just wait until they break out with
>Sabrina
>> necrophila pics. Bleagh.]
>
>Plus, when you think about it, these things only have the continuity
>that the artist defines... if we agree to it.
>
>What I mean is... say Eric dirt-naps Sabrina. How exactly will that
>stop anyone with the inclination from creating more nude pictures of
>her? It's not like live actors, where a TV character would be
>discontinued if the actor died.
There's one intresting example of this.Someone mentioned earlier in this post
of when Robert Crumb having his Fritz the Cat killed with an icepick, due to
his disapproval of the Ralph Bakshi movie. It didn't stop Steven Krantz, the
producer of the movie, of producing a sequel titled "The Nine Lives of Fritz
the Cat" after the icepick story. (Bakshi wasn't involved with the project this
time.)
John Shughart
DishRoom1
Tamar wrote --
>> then again i'm sure if wb ccame to him and politely asked him to remove it
>> he would have this priest guy's attitude about it.
>
>I believe you meant to say he _wouldn't_ have the same attitude. I don't
>know and can't say. Shall we ask Bob Guthrie his opinion? I've heard Bob
>say he's hardly happy about what's been done with Lola, first by WB and then
>by fans.
OK, I can't help be curious. What was the story with Bob, Lora, and Warner
Brothers?
John Shughart
Jace
<dood...@cheesies.pacbell.net> wrote:
> "Jace" <ja...@softhome.net> wrote in message
> news:an8pktcrin1c6ccut...@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 18:29:54 -0700, "Doodles"
> > <dood...@cheesies.pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > > But his doing that would really be the wrong action. It wouldn't give
> him
> > > control, it would be his giving up the characters to the people like
> > > Priest22, which is anything but what most of Sabrina's fans want.
> [Besides,
> > > if you think things are bad now, just wait until they break out with
> Sabrina
> > > necrophila pics. Bleagh.]
> >
> > Plus, when you think about it, these things only have the continuity
> > that the artist defines... if we agree to it.
>
> And in some cases, the creator gets pushed in a direction kept resisting but
> had to go to after the insistence of fans, only to find the fans had the
> right idea. Like when Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote "The Final Problem" and
> Sherlock Holmes' legions of fans cried out "NO IT BLOODY ISN'T!" =};-3
Yup.
> Sabrina is pretty, smart and sexy in her own way. Innocence is nice, but...
> She works at a porn studio and her boss has hit on her in the past. Even if
> nothing else ever takes place, you _know_ these are the sort of dreams Zig
> Zag is having about her. Certainly the way Eric's played the story to this
> point indicates such. For all intents and purposes, that's how I'd look at
> these images: wishful thinking on ZZ's part, nothing more.
*nods* That's your choice, and I'll take your word for it. I didn't
know things were so meshed in furrydom.
Would I be missing out on anything as such if I were to start reading
Sabrina Online only now?
> [But I ain't down with messing with Tabitha. No way in hell.]
I'll take your word for it at this point, not knowing any better....
> > What I mean is... say Eric dirt-naps Sabrina. How exactly will that
> > stop anyone with the inclination from creating more nude pictures of
> > her? It's not like live actors, where a TV character would be
> > discontinued if the actor died.
>
> And with the near-instant distribution channels available nowadays, what
> prevents this material from growing until it swamps the original idea?
> Frightening thought, no? It's why I hope Eric doesn't make a rash decision
> to do something so drastic. But since said decision _is_ Eric's, all I can
> do is wish him my best and hope that things somehow work out.
*nods* Definitely.
Doodles
> What?
>
> and not when one of its members uses another person's personal fursona in
an
> adult situation with tabetha is it just lines on paper. you can't get any
> more personal than that.
Sure you can. One can use someone's real kid for such purposes, at which
point said person can go to jail and be used as someone's butt buddy, if not
just have a barbell dropped on your throat. [And a full pardon to whoever
does it, as far as I'm concerned.]
Or you could assault the person directly, with much the same result.
Either action is far more personal than screwing with a drawing.
Let me keep things in perspective:
Do I like what Priest22 is doing? No.
Do I understand how Eric feels? I think so.
Do I have a right to do anything about it? Not one in hell.
Doodles
"DishRoom1" <dish...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010711000552...@ng-mi1.aol.com...
> OK, I can't help be curious. What was the story with Bob, Lora, and Warner
> Brothers?
It's a long story, but the short form is that Bob was working for WB's
merchandise dept when Space Scam was in production and _way_ behind
schedule, and nobody could come up with a decent design for the female
rabbit in Animation so they dropped it in Bob's lap in panic. Bob came up
with Lola and passed it over and the Animation group copied it and claimed
it was their idea all along. Don't you love corporate America?
Usually Bob's pretty ambivalent about the whole thing, since given the
nature of what he was doing it was pretty commonplace for this crap to get
pulled, but he does still harbor some feelings about what happened.
As for what others are doing with Lola now, I don't remember if Bob has said
anything to me directly about the subject. That's why I say to go and ask
him.
Doodles
>
> *nods* That's your choice, and I'll take your word for it. I didn't
> know things were so meshed in furrydom.
I don't think I'd call what goes on 'meshed.' _Mashed,_ maybe...
> Would I be missing out on anything as such if I were to start reading
> Sabrina Online only now?
You'd have catching up to do, but my opinion is that it would be well worth
the effort. Just pop over to www.sabrina-online.com and check the archives.
Fal Leac
>Do I have a right to do anything about it? Not one in hell.
You don't live in the United States or Canada? If you do... you have the right
to say what you want :P
Robin Fal Leac, Pray for peace in Northern Ireland... God bless.
(Fal Leac is pronounced F-lack in Gaelic)
Doodles
news:20010711144553...@ng-mb1.aol.com...
> >Doodles wrote-
>
> >Do I have a right to do anything about it? Not one in hell.
>
> You don't live in the United States or Canada? If you do... you have the
right
> to say what you want :P
_Say,_ yes. _Do,_ no. Understand the difference.
Tamar
the problem. i'm glad other americans in history did have such a couch
potato mentality like that. sure, your efforts may net little results but
at least you stood up for what is right instead of just throwing you hands
up.
"Doodles" <dood...@cheesies.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:9iifck$hae$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
DishRoom1
I wrote --
>> OK, I can't help be curious. What was the story with Bob, Lora, and Warner
>> Brothers?
>It's a long story, but the short form is that Bob was working for WB's
>merchandise dept when Space Scam was in production and _way_ behind
>schedule, and nobody could come up with a decent design for the female
>rabbit in Animation so they dropped it in Bob's lap in panic. Bob came up
>with Lola and passed it over and the Animation group copied it and claimed
>it was their idea all along. Don't you love corporate America?
Ah, I see. That was cutthroat lousy. Kind of like how Otis Messer often didn't
get enough credit from his producer for creating Felix the Cat.
>
>Usually Bob's pretty ambivalent about the whole thing, since given the
>nature of what he was doing it was pretty commonplace for this crap to get
>pulled, but he does still harbor some feelings about what happened.
I can understand.
>
>As for what others are doing with Lola now, I don't remember if Bob has said
>anything to me directly about the subject. That's why I say to go and ask
>him.
Uhm, then what is the e-mail or whatever where I can contact Bob? I always
tried to get in touch with him after seeing the art for some of his
furry-related work, besides.
John Shughart
Brian O'connell
(1) Cost: First to do something, one has to have the finances... In the case
where I mentioned an artist's prosecution fund, I recieved *2* responses,
and no others... To get such a thing under way, you need funding, to make it
a reality, you need support... Otherwise, you have no recourse but to shrug
at it...
(2) Law: The US as a whole is such that the only practical way to establish
a permanent and beneficial change is to rewrite the laws, which requires (1)
funding and (b) immense amounts of support in liew of funds... Money rules
here... The only other way is to overthrow the government and establish new
laws and constitutional amendments, or to make sure that the paper
politicians you elect to congress actually have a clue... Good smegging
luck... In both cases, you have an overwhelming amount of complacency and
apathy... If a barn full of kids and religious nuts burning to the ground
cannot inspire a nation to change it's leadership, what can???
(3) The letter of the law: The biggest difficulty is in proving any law was
actually violated... Most artists don't have the money to go through the
more commonly accepted channels of obtaining paperwork from the Library of
Congress to prove they own what they own, irregardless of the fact that such
isn't the exclusive case... In laymans terms, this means that even a Š
symbol on the artwork, unless backed up with an extensive number of lawyers
and funding for same, is completely irrelevant on the internet... There is
no way to legally back this up in any way related to my point (1) claim,
because frankly a large majority of furries (and other media addicts) simply
*do not care*...
--
Reverse the e-mail's spelling to reply...
If you cannot think for yourself, it doesn't entitle you to think for me...
"Tamar" <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tkph9ko...@corp.supernews.com...
PeterCat
> available where miscellaneous artists can list off the sites that
> they authorized to repro their artwork.
The same function can be served if the artist simply posts the
authorized sites on his or her home page or primary archive page. That
way the artist has total control for updating the authorized sites,
without relying on whoever's maintaining the database. (It would be wise
to establish an index of artists, though. I just tried searching for
"James Hardiman" on Google and found the James Hardiman Library in
Ireland. Not quite the same guy!)
Chris Johnson
<dood...@cheesies.pacbell.net> wrote:
> And in some cases, the creator gets pushed in a direction kept resisting but
> had to go to after the insistence of fans, only to find the fans had the
> right idea. Like when Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote "The Final Problem" and
> Sherlock Holmes' legions of fans cried out "NO IT BLOODY ISN'T!" =};-3
> Sabrina is pretty, smart and sexy in her own way. Innocence is nice, but...
> She works at a porn studio and her boss has hit on her in the past. Even if
> nothing else ever takes place, you _know_ these are the sort of dreams Zig
> Zag is having about her. Certainly the way Eric's played the story to this
> point indicates such. For all intents and purposes, that's how I'd look at
> these images: wishful thinking on ZZ's part, nothing more.
The whole thing is very interesting. I have to say... I wish _I'd_
created a character of any sort that compels such fascination. I find it
just a tiny bit petty that someone would do this and then need to maintain
such complete control. But there's a 'but'...
...which is as follows. I have seen one of the pictures, the 'tease no
more' picture. I knew instantly it wasn't Eric S., but more than that...
it was cute and all, but that was NOT SABRINA. I mean, no freaking way was
that Sabrina, in the slightest. Sabrina's a lot more than just a visual
character design, there are many visual character designs sexier than her
in some way but it's the _personality_ that is the heart of the matter.
And I'm sure there _are_ some secret Sabrina pics that do capture her
personality well- but how many? And how many depict the body with great
faithfullness, but totally fail with the spirit?
To me that's a big deal... arguably MORE so than with, say, WB
characters. Sabrina Online has very little going on other than being an
artistic pursuit. It's terrific- and absolutely consistent, which is a
pearl beyond price. I've rarely had a bigger grin than when I got to see
Sabrina's face in the 'jungle skunks' picture... no amount of 'hentai' can
replace moments like that.
And the reason it hits, makes that sort of impact is because it's so
consistent. I write instead of draw (and not enough of that, even) but I
have a character with a similar bulletproof public decorum- Edie, in
'Aquarius'- but Edie has a dark side and slums (shocked the heck out of me
when I started writing that part and figured out why she was so stubborn
about behaving 'properly') and is nothing like so innocent as Sabrina, and
Edie's simply not made much of an impression on anyone. But I wouldn't
change her, because she expresses things about me- she is 'true' as much
as Sabrina is, it's just that there's something about Sabrina that really
appeals to people...
And that's all sort of moot because the point has little to do with
anything _I've_ done and everything to do with the way Eric relates to
Sabrina. And I sympathise- I too have produced a female character out of
the depths of my psyche that, for me, is compelling. So did Lewis Carroll.
I daresay I am not as nice a person as Lewis Carroll or Eric, and that's
why my character is kinda miswired... but I sympathise with the feeling,
and it comes from conflicts of personality. When I saw the 'tease no more'
picture, it was like a decent approximation of Sabrina only after having
been taken over by Pod People (Spooge People?), and mocking Eric (quite
literally) with the change in personality. That's... not quite right.
Perhaps it's even permissible- but it is also an insult, and a little
simplistic- ye gods, does anyone seriously think Sabrina's appeal is a
matter of shapes and lines on paper?
Chris Johnson
ilr
>
> I guess that would be a legal prosecution fund, instead of defense, as
> in this case it's not the artists (character creators) who have violated
> the law. But that sounds weird. Let's call it a "legal protection fund,"
> and put me down for $100. Who wants to match contributions?
>
> If this Priest22 is out of his teens, I'd be surprised.
> Time for the grownups to put a stop to it.
>
Don't blame age on it. I know 14 year-olds who're more mature than half
the adults out there. And I consider Preist22 a friend of mine. He just
happens to be one of those friends that you have to beat them the fuck down
every now and then, straighten 'em out. Looks like he's due, and not just
for a verbal beating either.
-Ilr
Jace
<dood...@cheesies.pacbell.net> wrote:
> "Jace" <ja...@softhome.net> wrote in message
> news:5nfpkt4jdo6ul1e47...@4ax.com...
> >
> > *nods* That's your choice, and I'll take your word for it. I didn't
> > know things were so meshed in furrydom.
>
> I don't think I'd call what goes on 'meshed.' _Mashed,_ maybe...
Well... I mean, I know characters interact on MUCKs and so on....
But I didn't know that they did more than cameo in each other's comic
strips... but if Zig-Zag is Sabrina's boss, that's a much larger role,
seeing as the two come from different creators....
> > Would I be missing out on anything as such if I were to start reading
> > Sabrina Online only now?
>
> You'd have catching up to do, but my opinion is that it would be well worth
> the effort. Just pop over to www.sabrina-online.com and check the archives.
Catching-up is a given.... I just wasn't sure if there'd be anything
of the 'limited time only' sort.... stuff regular followers would have
seen, but would be hard to find for anyone else.
Jace
it's all very well to say 'If you don't do, you're part of the
problem'. Well then, what _can_ be done by anyone except Eric?
---
Blue Streak
There are a couple of differences between ripping off Eric Schwartz's
characters, and ripping off WB and Disney characters...
1. If the characters Sabrina or Max Blackrabbit become known for
pornography, it may not be appropriate for Eric Schwartz to use those
characters for future projects, or worst, may pressure him into stopping
"Sabrina Online". Most characters ripped off from WB and Disney have been
abandoned by their creators, so there is little chance that pornographic
depictions of those characters will obstruct WB or Disney's future projects.
2. "Sabrina Online" is an ongoing narrative. If the viewers' impression of
Sabrina's personality and character becomes tainted, the comic strip may not
work in the intended way. In contrast, Disney has long ago concluded the tv
show "Rescue Rangers" (as an example); it doesn't matter if viewers'
impressions of Gadget's personality change now, because those viewers have
already enjoyed the show the way its writers intended.
3. Max Blackrabbit is the "fursona" of a real person. Some people around
here take these fursonas seriously and might think of "Max Blackrabbit" as
the character depicted doing inappropriate things with Tabitha, and not as
the real life artist who plays video games and attends conventions.
BS
"Nathan G." <jna...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3B4B686B...@hotmail.com...
> But then it brings up other questions. I have displayed my drawings of WB,
> Disney, and Sega characters. Of course, many who are also on Eric's side
> (including Eric) have, too. Hypocrasy? You bet. Then again, that's
humanity for
> you. It's virtually impossible NOT to be hypocratic on SOME level. There's
grey
> areas abound.
>
> -Nathan G.
>
Jace
> > Time for the grownups to put a stop to it.
> >
> Don't blame age on it. I know 14 year-olds who're more mature than half
> the adults out there. And I consider Preist22 a friend of mine. He just
> happens to be one of those friends that you have to beat them the fuck down
> every now and then, straighten 'em out. Looks like he's due, and not just
> for a verbal beating either.
> -Ilr
>
I suspect many around here will want details. *grins*
Felyne32k
ja...@softhome.net says...
> > happens to be one of those friends that you have to beat them the fuck down
> > every now and then, straighten 'em out. Looks like he's due, and not just
> > for a verbal beating either.
> I suspect many around here will want details. *grins*
Skip details, I want tape...
I'll pay for tape and duplication if it's a problem. Can't pay for
camera, though. Sorry.
--
-Felyne32k, supposed "English Major"
DISCLAIMER: The poster is known to experience judgement
lapses brought by sleep deprivation. Take note of posting
time: anything beyond 11:30 PM, EASTERN Standard Time is
likely to be influenced by this condition.
Felyne32k
ja...@softhome.net says...
> yeah, but Doodles can't take any sort of action against Priest22....
> it's all very well to say 'If you don't do, you're part of the
> problem'. Well then, what _can_ be done by anyone except Eric?
>
Help Eric out where you can.
If you're ilr, smack Priest22 around until he gets some sense.
Smack Priest22 around until he gets some sense, even if you aren't
ilr.
Support ilr and associates in their smacking of Priest22.
Help ilr and associates out where you can (I have a good two-and-a-
half foot length of heavy rebar if you want it.. ;-))
Etc
Jace
wrote:
> In article <fmorkt8i0db93prto...@4ax.com>,
> ja...@softhome.net says...
> > yeah, but Doodles can't take any sort of action against Priest22....
> > it's all very well to say 'If you don't do, you're part of the
> > problem'. Well then, what _can_ be done by anyone except Eric?
> >
> Support Eric.
> Help Eric out where you can.
> If you're ilr, smack Priest22 around until he gets some sense.
> Smack Priest22 around until he gets some sense, even if you aren't
> ilr.
> Support ilr and associates in their smacking of Priest22.
> Help ilr and associates out where you can (I have a good two-and-a-
> half foot length of heavy rebar if you want it.. ;-))
> Etc
Well, I figured the first one was a given anyway, but I hadn't
considered the others...
Brian O'connell
wouldn't require everyone with a suspician of piracy to browse every
artists' site to find verification of such... The idea is to make it as easy
for the artists as possible as well, and posting it to however many websites
as they have is an additional hassle...
--
Reverse the e-mail's spelling to reply...
If you cannot think for yourself, it doesn't entitle you to think for me...
"PeterCat" <pete...@furry.fan.org> wrote in message
news:petercat-86DE99...@news.chameleon.net...
Fal Leac
>_Say,_ yes. _Do,_ no. Understand the difference.
I think your little remark was highly uncalled for...
I'm not an idiot and I would appreciate it if you didn't address me in this
manner.
Marianflack
>_Say,_ yes. _Do,_ no. Understand the difference.
Your certainly arrogant aren't you.
Rob is not a child. Try speaking to him and other people like they were
sentient.
It's not a surprise though, most people now days have circumb to the "screw
you" mentality.
Careful how your answer. I'm not libel to forgive as easily as Rob.
Doodles? :P
-Marian Fal Leac
hans the hussar
YOU WROTE THIS-
>_Say,_ yes. _Do,_ no. Understand the difference.
HEY!!! COME TALK TO ME LIKE THAT!!!
I AM HANS THE HUSSAR AND I AM NOT AFRAID OF COWARDLY LITTLE MEN WHO HIDE BEHIND
KEYBOARDS AND RANT IN NEWSGROUPS!!!
I WAIT FOR YOUR REPLY!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
Keep Sabrina Clean
Hans the Hussar
"Behold the bold Hussar! Terror of the battlefield! Never willing to yield!
Behold the bold Hussar!"
Fal Leac
Okay everybody simmer down... it's not that important.
Hans you calm down...that's an order. It's not worth it. Save it for those
people who are trying to ruin Sabrina's character.
Doodles is obviously a little defensive... you know the type... got a chip on
his shoulder.
Don't provoke Hans... Doodles... he's not somebody to provoke... trust me...
By the way don't think you're the authority on freedom... I grew up in Derry
(that's in Northern Ireland by the way) so I know the difference between "say
and do". .
hans the hussar
>Hans you calm down...that's an order
GGGGGGGRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!
Yes sir.
>Don't provoke Hans... Doodles... he's not somebody to provoke... trust me...
I work for the IRS :)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
(this has been a bit of newsgroup drama performed by Inis Fal leac Productions.
Join us next time for "Attack of the Furry Aliens" We're just playing with you
Doodles. Sorry if you took it seriously)
Jace
<1lla...@tsewq.ten> wrote:
> It would be easier to post the info to one centralized website, since such
> wouldn't require everyone with a suspician of piracy to browse every
> artists' site to find verification of such... The idea is to make it as easy
> for the artists as possible as well, and posting it to however many websites
> as they have is an additional hassle...
Yeah, but keeping the database updated is gonna be a major task....
Tamar
tend to watch the back of the creators that feed it by being their extra
eyes and ears, which is how guys like this are found out in the first place.
thats the positive of furry fandom, those who don't sit on theit thumbs when
they see a wrong done cause in the long run what's good for the creaters of
furry material is good for the fandom as a whole.
"Jace" <ja...@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:fmorkt8i0db93prto...@4ax.com...
ilr
Hey guys, why not just help Schartz by raising enough money for him
to Trade-Mark a few of his most Vulnerable Chracters instead?
...Don't know what the price-tag on that is yet, but it can't be ~that~ bad.
-Ilr
ilr
"hans the hussar" <hansth...@aol.comnapoleon> wrote in message
news:20010712001336...@ng-cr1.aol.com...
> Major Fal Leac wrote-
>
Sorry, but it has to be said...
All 3 of you are looking like jackasses. Doodles is always calm and
never insulting and all he did was point out the a key difference.
Let's have no "Ganging-up here" plz.
-Ilr
Doodles
> Doodle wrote-
>
> >_Say,_ yes. _Do,_ no. Understand the difference.
>
> I think your little remark was highly uncalled for...
> I'm not an idiot and I would appreciate it if you didn't address me in
this
> manner.
Once again, the inability of text to transpose emotion [or in this case,
lack thereof], rears it's head.
Do not take what is said as an insult, and always assume a conversational,
not confrontational tone. I find this avoids numerous flamewars.
However, do take what I said as advice. All the screaming and yelling and
wailing and gnashing of teeth isn't going to correct things. Nor are
threats of physical violence.
Doodles
> HEY DOODLES!!!! OVER HERE!!!!
Yays?
> YOU WROTE THIS-
> >_Say,_ yes. _Do,_ no. Understand the difference.
>
> HEY!!! COME TALK TO ME LIKE THAT!!!
> I AM HANS THE HUSSAR AND I AM NOT AFRAID OF COWARDLY LITTLE MEN WHO HIDE
BEHIND
> KEYBOARDS AND RANT IN NEWSGROUPS!!!
>
> I WAIT FOR YOUR REPLY!!!
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
Please turn off your caps lock. It makes you look poorly in the eyes of
others.
Thank you.
Doodles
> the problem. i'm glad other americans in history did have such a couch
> potato mentality like that. sure, your efforts may net little results
but
> at least you stood up for what is right instead of just throwing you hands
> up.
So if I had the capacity to give Warner Brothers the name and address of
TDK, as well as anyone else I recognize performing such acts, I should do
so?
I think we have a divergence here. I agree with you that this is morally
wrong. I disagree that [outside of ilr having a long talk with the fellow
in private] there is a great deal one can do without risking harming others
less deserving of said ire.
Calm, rational action. And compromise. Give and take. That's the real
bulwark of the United States. Even the Constitution was a compromise that
had to be hashed out over the course of years before it was a viable
document. Even then, it took hostile action to hash out the bigger flaws.
The best solution I can think of would be to take Eric and Priest22 aside
someplace and let them discuss this between themselves. I'm on Eric's side
with this, but my support has to end there. I do like a lot of Brian's
ideas on a copyright defense group, but I am poor and thus unable to make
any monetary contribution.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
> I always believed that there were no real people who were deliberately
> bad.
On that we are aggried.
[...]
> Violators of intellectual
> property rights are constantly telling us that they aren't doing
> anything wrong, and I understand why that's their worldview even if I
> strongly disagree with them.
Nods.
> But here we see one who says,
> point-blank, "I know it's wrong. I believe it's wrong. And I'm going
> to keep doing it." How does anyone think like that?
There are two options here. One he is lieing about how he feels, and
doesn't wish to go threw anouther cycle of debait by bascially
destorying the oppisions argument by nutrilising it.
Or he is like the teenage Satinist who doesn't know what "Thelema"
is, that is he just wishes to repell against the moral order.
The first I see as an interesting stratergy, the second I see as a
failing of character. I dislike Immorallity.
--
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.
Doodles
>
> Hey guys, why not just help Schartz by raising enough money for him
> to Trade-Mark a few of his most Vulnerable Chracters instead?
Hmmm... Nice idea. It's the tactic that the larger media companies use as
much as copyright to protect their intellectual properties.
> ...Don't know what the price-tag on that is yet, but it can't be ~that~
bad.
It's more than copyright, if I recall, but I haven't got the numbers in
front of me. Let me do a little searching.
[www.whitehouse.gov for all your government queries. Anyone for a bit of
Tee-Ball with GWB?]
Ah yes, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, www.uspto.gov
Basic application cost, $325 per class of trademark requested. [There's
several different classes of trademark allowed and since this was a quick
search, I don't know what classes would be required.]
The full fee list is on:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/1999/fee20001001.htm#tmfee for
further reference.
Keep in mind that each character would need a separate trademark, so just
one class for his major characters would cost a couple of grand. Amy,
Sabrina, Tabitha, Timothy, his own fursona jump up, but I know there's
others. Many of the characters in the strip, like Zig Zag, are another
person's creation.
I haven't been able to find the international laws with respect to trademark
as yet [government regs tend to be convoluted reading at times, and their
websites are no exceptions], but I'll put my neck out and guess until told
otherwise that they afford the same protections. But don't take that as
gospel, do some research.
ilr
"Doodles" <dood...@cheesies.pacbell.net> wrote in message news:9ikd3q$20j$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
> "ilr" <i...@rof.net> wrote in message news:9ik7vo$1gv$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
Well, the only one you'd really need to put the curtain around is Sabrina
since just about every aspect of this messed up little club revolves
around her likeness.
Then it would be possible to force a C&D on anyone involved.
And since Preist is obviously involved, he could be subpoenaed
so fast it would make his head spin.
-Ilr
Doodles
>
> "Doodles" <dood...@cheesies.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:9ikd3q$20j$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
> > "ilr" <i...@rof.net> wrote in message
news:9ik7vo$1gv$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
>
> Well, the only one you'd really need to put the curtain around is Sabrina
> since just about every aspect of this messed up little club revolves
> around her likeness.
Well, the piece that has really torqued off folks involves Tabitha as well,
so at least she would need similar protection.
> Then it would be possible to force a C&D on anyone involved.
> And since Preist is obviously involved, he could be subpoenaed
> so fast it would make his head spin.
Someone want to start a fund at Anthrocon to help Eric pay the fees?
******************
As an aside, I'm posting this from a message I got in e-mail just an hour
ago from one of my mailing lists:
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 22:36:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: priest22x <clubs...@yahoo-inc.com>
Subject: The new Flamewar Egroup [Yahoo! Clubs: TDKtoonhentai]
Errors-to: clubs...@yahoo-inc.com
Reply-to: clubs...@yahoo-inc.com
Message-id: <0GGC00E...@mta1.snfc21.pbi.net>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
There is a new Egroup that has been created to let people resolve their
problems in a loud and violent format.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theflamewargroup/
Current topic: Posting artists work without their permission.
"This is a place to get things resolved - in a bit nastier but much more
effective manner"
*********
Does the word 'chutzpah' scream to mind? =};-3
Tamar
than a talking to and i probably wouldn't be half as made if he wasn't
encouraging the creation of tabetha art. i mean she's 3 for crying out
loud, how can you get sexual enjoyment from a character that not only looks
3 but acts 3? "well, it's just pencil on paper", but if he's getting off on
that, what easy flips his switch?
"Doodles" <dood...@cheesies.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:9ikb96$1r7$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
Silvermane Liger
consider with certain characters.
Copyright law is intended to protect the creators rights to a 'pen and
ink' creation. Thus if you draw a picture, write a sentance etc. that
creation is instantly your copyright.
Copyright does not cover a character, or character design. It is not
designed to do so.
If someone reproduces your picture/writing they have possibly infringed
your rights under copyright to that image/writing. If someone redraws or
re-writes your work, or uses a character you have created in a new
picture then they own the copyright to that work and you have no claim
over it. In law you would have great difficulty defending your rights to
a 'character' under copyright law, as the image using your character may
not be in breach of copyright law.
Due to the commercial applications in the modern world of images,
designs, logos, etc. there are a range of protections available which
may be more suitable to protect a character from inappropriate and
unauthorised use. It would be worthwhile investigation : Note, UK terms
used, may be different in the US.
Registered design Protecting a design, eg a bottle shape.
Trade Mark Principally for commercial names, brand names.
Patent office Often offers a registration of designs that are
not 'inventions' and therefore outside of patent
law, but offers legal evidence of your
ownership of a design.
There may be schemes on offer which would allow you to register a
character design (eg, using a model sheet) so that you can defend your
character in law from 'inappropriate use', including unauthorised use by
other artists.
Note that you would be able to contend that placing the image on a web
site, newsgroup or other Internet resource constitutes publishing. Thus
the not-for-profit arguments fall down as publishing is a commercial
activity and the law really doesn't give a shit about if you make a
profit or a loss.
In article <9ikim5$2b9$1...@raccoon.fur.com>, ilr <i...@rof.net> writes
>
>Well, the only one you'd really need to put the curtain around is Sabrina
>since just about every aspect of this messed up little club revolves
>around her likeness.
>
>Then it would be possible to force a C&D on anyone involved.
>And since Preist is obviously involved, he could be subpoenaed
>so fast it would make his head spin.
>-Ilr
>
>
Silvermane Liger Ian Stradling
Li...@faradawn.demon.co.uk Stay Furry!
Dainties Web Page http://www.fysh.org/~liger/Fanzines/Dainties.html
Save the Tiger!
Fal Leac
>All 3 of you are looking like jackasses
Go back and reread all the posts... the last post by Hans says it was a joke...
noone was really going after Doodles...
We were really trying to show how people react... albeit wrongly towards
newsgroup posts. Remmember how I made faces on a previous post or yelled at you
in Gaelic... never take anything so seriously... not even Hans... or newsposts
that could lead to confrontation.
Hey Doodles... we're sorry... but you see how serious things can get. Even
Priest22 going after Eric and his characters is an example of somebody taking
something so serious that they are unable to let go for the better of others.
It's called the "screw you mentality"... you the do what you want despite what
others think or feel...
Eric cares about his Characters... People care about Doodles... Marian cares
about Rob... and Hans is just loud. The point is that these things are like
ripples in a pond... we each touch each other in some way... no one we meet
goes untouched... even on the internet.
ILR is right... this attitude is definitly Jackass material... we deserve it...
but so does everybody who has done something stupid or said something without
thinking... the only solution is not to react to it... stop getting angry...
Copyrights violations can be stopped... and they will... but getting angry at
people like priest22 and others only feeds the attention they want. I'm
advacating ignoring them... just getting angry and forgiving those who get
angry.
(This has been another episode of "As the Furry Turns")
Nathan G.
> characters, and ripping off WB and Disney characters...
Yes, I have thought of those. Thanks for bringing it up. One of the questions
I've been asking myself is whether that justification works for *me.* It's a
very convincing argument (It's the same one Eric himself used). Don't get me
wrong--I don't look down on those who use it. It's just my very literal mind at
work.
-Nathan G.
Cerulean
>> But here we see one who says,
>> point-blank, "I know it's wrong. I believe it's wrong. And I'm going
>> to keep doing it." How does anyone think like that?
>
>There are two options here. One he is lieing about how he feels, and
>doesn't wish to go threw anouther cycle of debait by bascially
>destorying the oppisions argument by nutrilising it.
>
>Or he is like the teenage Satinist who doesn't know what "Thelema"
>is, that is he just wishes to repell against the moral order.
No, you've overlooked one. I think the reality is that "I wanna"
simply supercedes any thoughts he might have of right and wrong. He
doesn't have the willpower to do anything but what he feels like
doing. It's the same laziness that keeps me from exercising more even
though I know I should. But that's my business; I'm not hurting anyone
else if I give in to my desires in that regard.
So, upon consideration, I think we are no longer in agreement. People
will do things they know are wrong because they don't care enough, or
don't have the restraint. I want to save money, but I don't shoplift.
There are people who steal because the most important thing to them is
that they want that stuff. If someone is annoying me, I want him to
stop, but I don't try to kill him. But I do have dreams in which I do,
because my primitive hindbrain is in control. I want the bastard in my
dream who is persistently prodding me in the stomach to go away, and
the most straightforward solution is to fly into a rage and try to
break his neck. When I am awake, I have the capacity to truly think,
and I don't let my beliefs be subordinate to what I want.
In fact, those people who do commit crimes against others while
believing what they are doing is right are probably just sloppy
thinkers who rationalize the morality of doing what they want.
The face of evil is the innocence of a small child. Have you ever seen
a two-year old deck a baby in the head because he wants his toy back?
He just wants the toy; he doesn't care about anything else.
--
___vvz /( Cerulean = Kevin Pease http://cerulean.st/
<__,` Z / ( DC2.~D GmAL~W-R+++Ac~J+S+Fr++IH$M-V+++Cbl,spu
`~~~) )Z) ( FDDmp4adwsA+++$C+D+HM+P-RT+++WZSm#
/ (7 ( S>J37) - ,,'a)ew!J6 ay+ 77!> ue) 6u!y+oN,,
Cerulean
>If someone reproduces your picture/writing they have possibly infringed
>your rights under copyright to that image/writing. If someone redraws or
>re-writes your work, or uses a character you have created in a new
>picture then they own the copyright to that work and you have no claim
>over it.
But copyright does cover derivative works. If someone re-draws your
work, using it as a reference, that's copying even if there are some
differences in the new version. The most often cited precedent is the
photographer whose "Row of Puppies" was used by someone else as the
model for a sculpture. It wasn't just an idea being used; every little
paw was in the exact same position. The sculptor was found to be in
breach of copyright, even though he changed some details and colors.
A character, admittedly, is something different. It's derivative, but
there's no one specific picture being copied. (Although sometimes
there is. Look at some of the fan art Absurd Notions has; even though
my style is pretty consistent, I can tell exactly which strip a
character was traced from. If it weren't being presented to me in good
faith with my permission, but distributed elsewhere without it, I
would probably have a case.) And then there's the concept of parody,
which can even trump trademark in many instances.
Brian O'connell
Other than a simple application process on the artist's part to create his
or her page, they can enter their own authorized website info (I seriously
doubt furry artists have more than a few to several domain names that they
authorized to carry their material)... As artists don't exactly have all the
time in the world to investigate every website, looking up a list of who
*is* authorized to redistribute their material is a hell of a lot faster
than going through a list of those who might not be...
--
Reverse the e-mail's spelling to reply...
If you cannot think for yourself, it doesn't entitle you to think for me...
"Jace" <ja...@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:jv5sktkpcp4g0tq9i...@4ax.com...
artist
> "ilr" <i...@rof.net> wrote in message news:9ikim5$2b9$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
> >
> > "Doodles" <dood...@cheesies.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:9ikd3q$20j$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
> > > "ilr" <i...@rof.net> wrote in message
> news:9ik7vo$1gv$1...@raccoon.fur.com...
> >
> > Well, the only one you'd really need to put the curtain around is Sabrina
> > since just about every aspect of this messed up little club revolves
> > around her likeness.
>
> Well, the piece that has really torqued off folks involves Tabitha as well,
> so at least she would need similar protection.
>
> > Then it would be possible to force a C&D on anyone involved.
> > And since Preist is obviously involved, he could be subpoenaed
> > so fast it would make his head spin.
>
> Someone want to start a fund at Anthrocon to help Eric pay the fees?
Maybe I missed it, but has Mr. Swartz already done all of this?
Fal Leac
but artworks are. They don't have to be published any more either... which is
great.
I personnally place all my drawing and writing onto a CD... when that's filled
up, I send the $40 fee and register it... even before I put it on the
internet... trust me it's worth it.
ilr
> Copyrights violations can be stopped... and they will...
Too bad It's a un-protected Trademark instead of a copyright infringement.
And Even if it was registered as a trademark, the bugger stands half a chance
of weasling his way out of it though a Parody Exception.
> but getting angry at
> people like priest22 and others only feeds the attention they want.
Yeah? Well I figure it's worth it as long as he get precisely the right kind
attention/infamy he's earned.
> I'm advacating ignoring them... just getting angry and
> forgiving those who get angry.
>
Great, 'cuz I'm gonna be in the Market soon for a whole ton of forgiveness
-Ilr
Farlo
>I'm gonna be in the Market soon for a whole ton of forgiveness
I am a registered Minister and can cut you a good deal on some
"indulgences". No kidding. A spoogy vixen commission, some heartfelt
confession of your sins, and you are "good to go".
--
Minister Farlo, ULC
Urban fey dragon
m>^_^<m
Keeper of *an* ALF FAQ
http://hall.j.m.home.att.net/alffaq/alffaq.html
Doodles
> i'd agrre but have you seen the guidelines to join? this guy needs more
> than a talking to and i probably wouldn't be half as made if he wasn't
> encouraging the creation of tabetha art.
Then Eric gets to carry in a baseball bat to the discussion. Seems
reasonable.
> i mean she's 3 for crying out loud, how can you get sexual enjoyment from
a
> character that not only looks 3 but acts 3? "well, it's just pencil on
paper",
> but if he's getting off on that, what easy flips his switch?
Hey, there's folks getting on pics of _real_ 3-yr. olds I worry about first.
Which brings up an interesting question: Has anyone checked this fellow out
to see if he has any kiddie porn? All it takes is a call to the cops...
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
> And I consider Preist22 a friend of mine.
Carefull or tamar might give you the 4th deggry.
Jace
He's got balls, anyway. Not for long if he ever gets within reach of
me and a 2-by-4 (which is unlikely, but it sounds cool), but... yeah.
First he causes controversy, then says 'Hey, come to MY group to
handle it!'
Jace
<1lla...@tsewq.ten> wrote:
> Not at all... Anyone who can do a decent CGI script and tables can do it...
> Other than a simple application process on the artist's part to create his
> or her page, they can enter their own authorized website info (I seriously
> doubt furry artists have more than a few to several domain names that they
> authorized to carry their material)... As artists don't exactly have all the
> time in the world to investigate every website, looking up a list of who
> *is* authorized to redistribute their material is a hell of a lot faster
> than going through a list of those who might not be...
Ok, yeah, that could work pretty well...
Though I _can_ see one glitch.... say a site gets authorization, and
puts up pictures. But the artist is too busy to update the list (which
_does_ sound unlikely as I say it). Anyway, the artist never gets
around to it, or it slips their mind or something.
In the meantime, someone else runs across the site. They check the
database but... uh oh! Not listed! And so they create a fuss, point it
out to the server, get the site taken down...
Ok, so the database would probably be easy to update, but I guess
anything is possible.
Still, I can't think of a better idea than what you've proposed. Just
a litle Devil's Advocacy.
Tamar
guilt by association.
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote in message
news:slrn9kt0df....@dformosa.zeta.org.au...
Tamar
thing about the fandom i like.
"Jace" <ja...@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:vdtukto1lgr2n8bql...@4ax.com...
Chris Johnson
> > but getting angry at
> > people like priest22 and others only feeds the attention they want.
> Yeah? Well I figure it's worth it as long as he get precisely the right kind
> attention/infamy he's earned.
What comes to mind for me is this: 30 years ago, if you had some guy
drawing pictures of Dopey rogering Snow White, NOBODY KNEW ABOUT IT. All
that stuff could still be going on but it was very unlikely to become
public and zero likelihood that anyone would think it was 'sanctioned'.
Now, you can put just about _anything_ on the Internet, and call
attention to it. The situation hasn't changed at all, only the avenues of
distribution have. The net makes an instant distributor for any sort of
wacky stuff.
Does this then automatically mean that content creators are
_sanctioning_ all the bizarre distortions of their work that arise?
Does it mean that people will assume that just because something is on
the Net, it is _official_?
That is very questionable. Personally, I doubt that very much.
The net is something new and different- and the reason I think people
should be thick-skinned about the twisted junk you find on it is not
because I like twisted junk, or even because I feel such people should be
specially protected. I think being thickskinned is important because such
twisted people are LOSERS and are revealing a lot more about themselves
than they are about the stuff they twist. I said it before and I'll say it
again- a pic of 'Sabrina' being sassy and whorish is NOT SABRINA, period.
It is also not important. It has no real internal life to it, no spirit
moving it- not like the very personable original.
I think stuff like Tabitha pr0n ought to be ignored with disdain and
contempt- 'tolerated' not because it _deserves_ consideration, but because
it is not _worth_ consideration, even the attempt to stamp it out.
If you try to stamp on mud you get spattered yourself- and just as
people doing Tabitha pr0n are revealing all too much about themselves,
wanting to stomp out 100% of this is likewise revealing- revealing someone
who can't accept badness in the world. Which is sorta laudable- but how
practical is it, and wouldn't it be better to put out positive energy and
do more proper work rather than going on the defensive and wasting time
and energy trying to stomp out something that really doesn't deserve the
respect of being considered an enemy?
Chris Johnson
Silvermane
<ma...@cerulean.st> writes
>Quoth Silvermane Liger:
>
>>If someone reproduces your picture/writing they have possibly infringed
>>your rights under copyright to that image/writing. If someone redraws or
>>re-writes your work, or uses a character you have created in a new
>>picture then they own the copyright to that work and you have no claim
>>over it.
>
>But copyright does cover derivative works. If someone re-draws your
>work, using it as a reference, that's copying even if there are some
>differences in the new version. The most often cited precedent is the
>photographer whose "Row of Puppies" was used by someone else as the
>model for a sculpture. It wasn't just an idea being used; every little
>paw was in the exact same position. The sculptor was found to be in
>breach of copyright, even though he changed some details and colors.
>
derivative and covered, or new and not covered by copyright law as long
as you like, you have to PROVE that a deliberate infringement has taken
place.
Copyright law is a protection for what is there in 'black and white',
not to protect you from someone else producing something which is
similar. If they duplicate your work they are in breach of copyright, if
they make something new but similar (eg. drawing the picture in a
different 'style') you're going to need a good lawyer to get your way.
It is better to assume that copyright law on its own will not provide
sufficient protection for a character or idea unless it is specifically
within the scope of the written law.
There are other legal protections which may be applicable and more
appropriate than simple copyright.
If you want to talk photographs, consider that I stand next to you and
take the same photograph you have taken. There are now two, almost
indistinguishable images.
If I sell my photograph do you have a claim?
If I sell my photograph, but before I do you sell your picture to the
same buyer. Do I have a claim?
Can I afford a better lawyer than you?
Interesting isn't it?
Similarly, if it's a drawn image (artwork) then you are likely to have
to prove that no other reasonable person could have come up with the
same concept. Civil law, like copyright, isn't always straightforward,
it doesn't work on right or wrong, it works on what can be argued to be
reasonable. Thus it is better to obtain correctly defined protection for
any idea, concept, image, character or whatever instead of relying on
the judge agreeing with your interpretation of a law that doesn't cover
you for 100% of your argument.
Regards,
Jace
> I think stuff like Tabitha pr0n ought to be ignored with disdain and
> contempt- 'tolerated' not because it _deserves_ consideration, but because
> it is not _worth_ consideration, even the attempt to stamp it out.
>
> If you try to stamp on mud you get spattered yourself- and just as
> people doing Tabitha pr0n are revealing all too much about themselves,
> wanting to stomp out 100% of this is likewise revealing- revealing someone
> who can't accept badness in the world. Which is sorta laudable- but how
> practical is it, and wouldn't it be better to put out positive energy and
> do more proper work rather than going on the defensive and wasting time
> and energy trying to stomp out something that really doesn't deserve the
> respect of being considered an enemy?
>
>
> Chris Johnson
In other words... you validate them by getting upset. It no longer
becomes an illicit thrill for the act itself, but because you've given
them attention and made them 'special'.
If it helps, think of them as a decrepit little hunchback, sitting in
near-darkness, doing whatever the hell it is they do... probably even
giggling hysterically and playing with themselves as they do. Why?
Because it makes them look like more of a perverted, pathetic little
fuck in your eyes, and therefore not worth the high blood pressure.
Get it? In outrage, you make them someone. In ignoring, you make them
nothing.
Sure, some things need to be stopped, but these people are octopi..
Mist and shadows. THey stop one place, only to start up again. Arms
everywhere.
And the only way to really change people's minds is by lobotomy.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
> Quoth ? the Platypus:
[...]
>>There are two options here. One he is lieing about how he feels, and
>>doesn't wish to go threw anouther cycle of debait by bascially
>>destorying the oppisions argument by nutrilising it.
>>
>>Or he is like the teenage Satinist who doesn't know what "Thelema"
>>is, that is he just wishes to repell against the moral order.
>
> No, you've overlooked one. I think the reality is that "I wanna"
> simply supercedes any thoughts he might have of right and wrong.
But how is that diffrent practically from a hedonist who judges what
is right or wrong by refrence to what causes them pleasure? I suppose
the diffrence is that one is not a hypocrit.
> He
> doesn't have the willpower to do anything but what he feels like
> doing. It's the same laziness that keeps me from exercising more even
> though I know I should.
I exercise because I happen to enjoy exercising.
[...]
> I want to save money, but I don't shoplift.
> There are people who steal because the most important thing to them is
> that they want that stuff.
There are thouse who shoplift because they have no other chouse (the
stealing bread to feed your children).
> If someone is annoying me, I want him to
> stop, but I don't try to kill him.
DO you not try to kill him because its immoral or simply because its
ineffective?
[...]
> The face of evil is the innocence of a small child. Have you ever seen
> a two-year old deck a baby in the head because he wants his toy back?
> He just wants the toy; he doesn't care about anything else.
I don't consider this evil, its amoral not immoral.
Gren
> is, that is he just wishes to repell against the moral order.
>
*hangs head in shame*
Gren (ultra sorry, but he couldn't resist) <=3
Cerulean
>> No, you've overlooked one. I think the reality is that "I wanna"
>> simply supercedes any thoughts he might have of right and wrong.
>
>But how is that diffrent practically from a hedonist who judges what
>is right or wrong by refrence to what causes them pleasure? I suppose
>the diffrence is that one is not a hypocrit.
A hypocrite would be someone who has different standards of morality
for himself and others. I'm talking about someone who has thought
about what counts as right and wrong in his own behaviour, and still
can't bring himself to do what he thinks is right.
>There are thouse who shoplift because they have no other chouse (the
>stealing bread to feed your children).
That's a crock. All things you do are choices. They've just decided
that theft isn't so bad that they can't do it. There are plenty of
desperately poor people in this world who tough it out and find other
ways to survive... or decide that they shouldn't survive if crime were
the only way to do it, and that becoming a thief would be as hurtful
to their family as hunger.
>> If someone is annoying me, I want him to
>> stop, but I don't try to kill him.
>
>DO you not try to kill him because its immoral or simply because its
>ineffective?
Because I really think it's wrong. To uncloud the question, let's go
back to the shoplifting. It would make my life better, and it is
ridiculously easy to get away with. But I don't. I know that in some
small way a number of people would be losing a tiny bit of something
they worked for and it wouldn't have been their choice to give it. And
that's enough to stop me from doing it.
>> The face of evil is the innocence of a small child. Have you ever seen
>> a two-year old deck a baby in the head because he wants his toy back?
>> He just wants the toy; he doesn't care about anything else.
>
>I don't consider this evil, its amoral not immoral.
A fair enough distinction to make, but it is the foundation. It's a
clearer window into the mind of an adult who has the capacity to think
about morality but still acts on his primal urges in spite of it.
Dr. Cat
: It's really difficult, isn't it, Doodles? I don't like to see an artist like
: Eric, who obviously cares a lot for his characters, get such disrespect. I don't
: like what is going on here and I won't support it. I'm on Eric's side.
: But then it brings up other questions. I have displayed my drawings of WB,
: Disney, and Sega characters. Of course, many who are also on Eric's side
: (including Eric) have, too. Hypocrasy? You bet. Then again, that's humanity for
: you. It's virtually impossible NOT to be hypocratic on SOME level. There's grey
: areas abound.
Just remember, Warner Brothers, Disney and Sega have TONS of money, and
Eric Schwarz doesn't. And be aware of where ethics and morality are
heading in this day and age - you must be nice to poor people and middle
class people and respect their rights, but you can and should treat rich
people like dirt. How dare they be so much better off than the rest of
us? They deserve to be taught a lesson. Besides if you take anything
from them they have so much to spare anyway they shouldn't complain!
: I'm not justifying the SSS. That is the last thing I would do. I don't believe
: in it. It just brings up a lot of questions. I guess it's mostly about the
: blatant disrespect toward an individual artist and his character.
That's right. Warner Brothers, Disney and Sega have GROUPS of artists
working on stuff, this is America where we're all about respecting
individuals instead. :X)
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.furcadia.com
Furcadia - a graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Disclaimer: Please try not to remember that some of the characters at Big
Rich Companies are created by individual artists, and that while the
company itself is rich the artist employee generally isn't. Remembering
this might cause an excess of sympathy, and then where would we get all
our Lola Bunny porn from?)
Dr. Cat
: There are a couple of differences between ripping off Eric Schwartz's
: characters, and ripping off WB and Disney characters...
Yeah, WB and Disney are rich and Eric's not. Down with the rich!
: 1. If the characters Sabrina or Max Blackrabbit become known for
: pornography, it may not be appropriate for Eric Schwartz to use those
: characters for future projects, or worst, may pressure him into stopping
: "Sabrina Online". Most characters ripped off from WB and Disney have been
: abandoned by their creators, so there is little chance that pornographic
: depictions of those characters will obstruct WB or Disney's future projects.
Like all the Pocohantas, Aladdin, Bugs Bunny, Simba, Little Mermaid, Pepe
LePew, Gadget, and Fifi porn out there? Yeah, they aren't making any
money off those characters and the continuous stream of new licensed
merchandise - unless you consider "millions of dollars" to be money. And
since when is either one's ability or interest in continuing to make money
off a character a requirement for having any specific moral, ethical, or
copyrightical type rights to the character? And what if an artist (or a
big evil corporation) feels like taking a 10 or 20 year break from doing
anything with a character, and then wants to do a bunch of new cool stuff
with it?
But heck, let's not forget that WB and Disney are STINKING RICH and Eric
isn't. Rich corporations are EVIL, right?
: 2. "Sabrina Online" is an ongoing narrative. If the viewers' impression of
: Sabrina's personality and character becomes tainted, the comic strip may not
: work in the intended way. In contrast, Disney has long ago concluded the tv
: show "Rescue Rangers" (as an example); it doesn't matter if viewers'
: impressions of Gadget's personality change now, because those viewers have
: already enjoyed the show the way its writers intended.
Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny certainly aren't something that the big
companies benefit from having an "ongoing impression" of. Unless you
count the way people like my mom have thought of Mickey Mouse for over
FIFTY YEARS, and will still interact with the creators and copyright
holders (more the latter, now that Walt is a popsicle) by looking at
some of the new artwork, products, etc. that come out from time to
time featuring those characters. Wasn't Bugs Bunny in Space Jam not
that long ago, many many decades after his first appearances? Do you
really think he's never going to be in another new cartoon? Do you
really think that his constant appearances in other media "don't count"?
But hey, let's get back at the rich piggies, they have more money than us!
: 3. Max Blackrabbit is the "fursona" of a real person. Some people around
: here take these fursonas seriously and might think of "Max Blackrabbit" as
: the character depicted doing inappropriate things with Tabitha, and not as
: the real life artist who plays video games and attends conventions.
Some people might run out and perform satanic rituals with goats blood
because Dagwood ate a sandwich with pickles on it, too. I don't think
the assumptions of those one-in-a-million type morons are worth basing
any significant decisions on in life, do you? Granted, people might
make a few guesses or assumptions about what Max is like when Max or
his friend Eric draw his character. But how many people are going to
make such assumptions based on a total stranger drawing the character
in some sleazy bar sticking bananas in his ears? And do we really
care what such people think?
Sarcasm aside - I don't really think many people are going to change their
perception of any mass media character that much based on sleezy porno
drawings of the character circulating around. People will assume Mickey
Mouse is still just like Mickey Mouse always was, but some pervo drew him
boffing Minnie because that's what pervos do. The big companies have
their lawyers argue that this kind of damage is likely because it's a more
sympathetic way to frame their case, and possibly one that would support
an argument for a higher level of fines for the violator of the copyrights
and/or trademarks. So I think arguing whether these claims apply more or
less to Sabrina is a somewhat suspect ground for the argument to begin
with.
I would say that Sabrina is probably somewhat more vulnerable to
mis-perception, because she's not a hugely famous mass-market character.
But most of the people bothering to have any perception of her at all
are the fandom types who do know who made her and what she's like, I
doubt the Sabrina-pr0n is going to reach a wider audience than Sabrina
Online. Probably a much smaller audience.
And I think much more of an issue in Sabrina being vulnerable to such
perceptions comes from being a character in a fandom where porn is
popular, drawn by someone who's drawn a lot of sexy or even sexual art
(including perhaps some of those WB and Disney characters, hmmm?),
shown as working for a porno-star who wants to have sex with her, a
porno-star who was created by another artist who draws said character
in nekkid and sexual situations, as do other artists. Plus, let's not
forget that Sabrina is drawn with no pants on. C'mon, her artist is
practically begging for it! Ain't he? Ok, ok, I know that "she was
asking for it by walking around dressed like that" is no defense.
But really, is vulnerability to misperceptions the required criteria for
an artist to have control over their work? If a character were to become
so well-established that it's not an issue, is everybody free to ignore
the copyright and run out and do whatever they want with the character?
Some "reward" for doing a good job establishing your work, huh?
Anyway, if somebody's going to bitch about "taking another artist's
characters and drawing them screwing each other's brains out", you
should be opposed to EVERYBODY doing that, or to NOBODY, shouldn't
you? I mean really, I can come up with a hundred ways in which
stealing from the local grocery store is DIFFERENT DIFFERENT DIFFERENT
from stealing from the local bank. But are they differences that MATTER?
Or do we have to conclude that if one of them is wrong, the other is wrong
for the same reasons?
Do you feel that creators have a right to control their character, or
don't you? Do you really think it's ok to say "You're morally entitled
to control your character, but I should be able to ignore that right if
*I* think the character doesn't need protecting from this because you
haven't used it lately, or because I don't think you'll suffer as much
damage as Eric would, in my personal opinion"?
Sounds like a load of hogwash to me.
Don't get me wrong, I'm playing devil's advocate. I think the "draw porn
of everybody's characters" people are at least being as consistent in
their beliefs as the "draw porn of nobody's characters without permission"
people. And maybe "fair use" should be extended in some ways, though I
certainly don't think you should be making money off anyone's characters
without their permission. But this whole "fandom artists should have
their intellectual property rights protected but the big rich companies
don't deserve the same protection" thing is just silly. They all deserve
it, or none of them do. You can't pick and choose who has rights like
that.
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.furcadia.com
Furcadia - a graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Disclaimer: Unless you really, really dislike them. Or they're stinking
rich. (Which amounts to the same thing, just ask Bill Gates!))
Tamar
wanted Sabrina and Tabatha artwork drawn. Proving the violation on that
fact wouldn't be harmed but I think the situation may be in the works of
being solved.
"Silvermane" <Li...@129.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Pr9h4JAi...@faradawn.demon.co.uk...
Custer J. Winston
> to Trade-Mark a few of his most Vulnerable Chracters instead?
>
> ...Don't know what the price-tag on that is yet, but it can't be ~that~
bad.
Oh yes it is. I already looked into that.
And the initial cost is nothing compared to the legal costs afterwards.
And you get put in the position of having to sue people you don't WANT to
sue because if you do not you establish precedent for invalidating your
trademark.
Only big corporations use trademarks - with any degree of success, at
least.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
> Quoth ? the Platypus:
[...]
>>But how is that diffrent practically from a hedonist who judges what
>>is right or wrong by refrence to what causes them pleasure? I suppose
>>the diffrence is that one is not a hypocrit.
>
> A hypocrite would be someone who has different standards of morality
> for himself and others.
I would regrad a hypocrite as one who says one thing and does
anouther.
[...]
>>There are thouse who shoplift because they have no other chouse (the
>>stealing bread to feed your children).
>
> That's a crock. All things you do are choices. They've just decided
> that theft isn't so bad that they can't do it.
If the chose is between crime and children staving to death then it
will be a life of crime.
chance wolf
> I would regrad a hypocrite as one who says one thing and does
> anouther.
The second statement adequately covers the first...and more.
> [...]
>
> >>There are thouse who shoplift because they have no other chouse (the
> >>stealing bread to feed your children).
> >
> > That's a crock. All things you do are choices. They've just decided
> > that theft isn't so bad that they can't do it.
>
> If the chose is between crime and children staving to death then it
> will be a life of crime.
...because all such things are judged on a sliding scale in real-life where
many of your choices are largely dictated by your environment. Killing
another of your own species is universally reviled, yet change circumstances
from "peacetime" to "wartime", and it becomes acceptable - even expected.
The sliding scale. The well-heeled socialite travelling through the
impoverished markets of some Central American country might well look down
his or her nose at some malnourished street urchin nicking a loaf of bread
from a merchant's cart, but then again, he or she can go back to the Well
Heeled Hilton and break out the Mastercard; street urchin goes back to dirt
floors and hot and cold running dysentery.
chance (everything you do is a choice to some degree - but I doubt there are
many who would choose to starve themselves or their offspring, huh?)