FOX to pull all nonOfficial X-FILE sites
Brian E. Kushner
> I extend my most heartfelt condolences to all my good buddies out
>there who have their very own X-Files homepage/site. FOX is cracking
>down on copyright infringement and your page is probably going to get
>yanked. According to announcements and lamentations of pain from a
>person shouting in the Wilderness of the X-FILES FAN FORUM Compuserve is
>yanking pages without notification. FOX has announced its intentions to
>crackdown on freeloading downloading fans who are paying fees to run
>copyrighted materials on their webpages. FOX has not sent out official
>announcements but I expect it will.
>More later......
>- AJ_is_A_Fannish_Mum UFQ...@prodigy.com
>X-FILES Forever/FOX is pulling this newgroup tomorrow
>
Isn't it funny they wait until the show is successful to do this. You
will never see a new or unsuccessful show do this because they want
the publicity, but once a show is tops they screw the fans that put it
there...
Brian
Kymberlee
(Brian E. Kushner) wrote:
> UFQ...@prodigy.com (Andre Bridget) wrote:
>
> > I extend my most heartfelt condolences to all my good buddies out
> >there who have their very own X-Files homepage/site. FOX is cracking
> >down on copyright infringement and your page is probably going to get
> >yanked. According to announcements and lamentations of pain from a
> >person shouting in the Wilderness of the X-FILES FAN FORUM Compuserve is
> >yanking pages without notification. FOX has announced its intentions to
> >crackdown on freeloading downloading fans who are paying fees to run
> >copyrighted materials on their webpages. FOX has not sent out official
> >announcements but I expect it will.
Well, I seriously doubt this. If they were going to let out after us web
page owners, they would have come after me ages ago. I have the
"Netpicker's Guide to the X-Files." If they wanted to close down sites,
I'd bet would have started with me. I haven't heard anything, and I'm not
going to worry.
Kymberlee
kkr...@elnet.com
Check out the _Space Cases_ home page at:
http://aea16.k12.ia.us/ricke/SpaceCases.html
TJ Currey
Compuserve and America Online. Both probably have strict agreements
with FOX regarding what content they are allowed to put in their services.
I know for a fact that AOL does not allow copyrighted XF pictures in their
forum. HOWEVER, if someone is using Compuserve or AOL to supply their
XF webpage, then Compuserve or AOL is violating their agreements with
FOX. Compuserve took down Stephanie's page, not FOX, but probably at
FOX's suggestion. FOX probably wanted Compuserve to pay a royalty for
any pictures that were used, and Compuserve probably said "No Way", and
just bleeped the page out of existance.
Now, if FOX starts going around to ALL internet providers, asking them to
pull down specific pages, then is when I will start a hissy fit *grin*
--
TJ Currey
Mac Med. Transcription: http://www.halcyon.com/mulder/mac.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Gaze fondly upon today, because tomorrow will certainly suck worse." --
Antonio "Wings"
Coleen Sullivan-Baier
E. Kushner) writes:
>
>Isn't it funny they wait until the show is successful to do this. You
>will never see a new or unsuccessful show do this because they want
>the publicity, but once a show is tops they screw the fans that put it
>there...
My bum hurts.
XXXXXXXXgizzieXXXXXXXX ('nuf said)
DONALD L. AYRTON
> UFQ...@prodigy.com (Andre Bridget) wrote:
>
> >yanking pages without notification. FOX has announced its intentions to
> >crackdown on freeloading downloading fans who are paying fees to run
> >copyrighted materials on their webpages. FOX has not sent out official
> >announcements but I expect it will.
>
>
> Isn't it funny they wait until the show is successful to do this. You
> will never see a new or unsuccessful show do this because they want
> the publicity, but once a show is tops they screw the fans that put it
> there...
I think you are howling up the wrong tree. It is more likely due to an
entertainment lawyer looking at Web pages and advising his client that with the
way the Net is growing in a year or less Copyright infringment is going to be
an unmanageable problem. Other owners of intellectual property are concerned
as well -- script writers and owners of rights to scripts are increasingly
concerned about transcripts and scanned versions of scripts to movies being
available on the Net.
Note the construction of the word "copyright". It is the right to make copies
of a work, and more than that, the owner holds the _sole_ right to make copies.
I understnad the feelings of those whose pages are being taken down, but I also
understand the needs of the owners.
John Switzer
Acceptable Risk <ri...@alpha.c2.org> wrote:
>>
>I think it's bullshit but... they can't stop usenet posts so... I'll
>still be posting all my pictures, sounds, etc on a regular basis.
>Let's see them *try* to stop that...
Hmmm, I would think a letter to Community Connexion threatening to sue
might do it. If not, then the actual lawsuit would, especially if FOX
brings in Connexion's provider (MCI?). This, of course, means your
account would be cancelled, restricted, or whatever, and/or that
Connexion would be more than happy to cooperate with FOX by
supplying your real name, address, etc. Given the influence the major
studios and networks have in California politics, you might get
some attention from the DA.
Have a nice day - it might be the last one you'll get for a while.
--
John Switzer | The saddest thing about it is that if
| Victor Hugo were alive, he'd have
jswi...@limbaugh.com | beaten Disney to it.
*** Access the Congressional Record at http://thomas.loc.gov ***
Unknown
giz...@ix.netcom.com(Coleen Sullivan-Baier) writes:
>In <4qtcjc$q...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> bkus...@ix.netcom.com (Brian
>E. Kushner) writes:
>>
>>Isn't it funny they wait until the show is successful to do this. You
>>will never see a new or unsuccessful show do this because they want
>>the publicity, but once a show is tops they screw the fans that put it
>>there...
I'm wondering whether it's any more legal to pull a
web page for these kind of things than it is to confiscate
pictures drawn by your hand, with the copyright of the
characters fairly shown, and sold.
Omaha
Omaha Sternberg (om...@eskimo.com)
Acceptable Risk
wrote:
>In article <31d1dc77...@news.concentric.net>,
>Acceptable Risk <ri...@alpha.c2.org> wrote:
>>>
>>I think it's bullshit but... they can't stop usenet posts so... I'll
>>still be posting all my pictures, sounds, etc on a regular basis.
>>Let's see them *try* to stop that...
>
>Hmmm, I would think a letter to Community Connexion threatening to sue
>might do it. If not, then the actual lawsuit would, especially if FOX
>brings in Connexion's provider (MCI?). This, of course, means your
>account would be cancelled, restricted, or whatever, and/or that
>Connexion would be more than happy to cooperate with FOX by
>supplying your real name, address, etc. Given the influence the major
>studios and networks have in California politics, you might get
>some attention from the DA.
>
>Have a nice day - it might be the last one you'll get for a while.
What are you talking about? I have no affiliations with Com Connex.
FOX can do nothing to me for two reasons, number one being if they
find my posts originating on one server, I'll switch to another news
server and two, I post very little that has anything to do directly
with FOX. Most of what I have is from magazines, etc. Get your facts
straight, little boy, before you post again. BTW, I've had many *nice*
days after incidents far more severe than this one...
>>>>>>>Acceptable Risk<<<<<<<<
>>>Have a nice day, and duck!<<<
>>>>>>>ri...@alpha.c2.org<<<<<<<
Requests for files via e-mail will be ignored
due to a 32k limit!!! Meaning...
I won't send 'em!!!
Member: TriLynx
Keyserver for PGP Key: 827D8809
PGP Fingerprint: 41 C3 9E 54 09 B5 70 33 90 F9 95 D5 28 2F 82 62
"We are the truth... we are here amongst you already... Trust No One..."
Acceptable Risk
wrote:
>In article <31d1dc77...@news.concentric.net>,
>Acceptable Risk <ri...@alpha.c2.org> wrote:
>>>
>>I think it's bullshit but... they can't stop usenet posts so... I'll
>>still be posting all my pictures, sounds, etc on a regular basis.
>>Let's see them *try* to stop that...
>
>Hmmm, I would think a letter to Community Connexion threatening to sue
>might do it. If not, then the actual lawsuit would, especially if FOX
>brings in Connexion's provider (MCI?). This, of course, means your
>account would be cancelled, restricted, or whatever, and/or that
>Connexion would be more than happy to cooperate with FOX by
>supplying your real name, address, etc. Given the influence the major
>studios and networks have in California politics, you might get
>some attention from the DA.
>
>Have a nice day - it might be the last one you'll get for a while.
>
You really think that alpha would give under pressure and produce my
real mail? You have much to learn Grasshopper. MCI is not the C2
provider, MCI hasn't been on the net long enough to be worth a shit,
(my post/mail may travel through MCI but they can't read it anyway).
You obviousely don't know jack shit about C2 or Connex (of which I am
NOT a member) Community Connexion is for anon web pages and mail. Note
that it's ANON, meaning you can't trace it. That's their job. No
lawyers, especially not FOX's Cali bullshit lawyers, are going to do
anything. I think you missed the whole point of this post. I *will*
keep posting my *copyright infringed* pictures, etc. Neither FOX nor
their lawyers (french for ground slugs) can stop usenet posts. I get
many a nice day, and I will for a long fucking time. Go to
alt.binaries.x-files every once in a while and see for yourself,
(assuming this whole rumor is true)
munc...@netcom.com
Kymberlee <wa...@elnet.com> wrote:
>Well, I seriously doubt this. If they were going to let out after us web
>page owners, they would have come after me ages ago. I have the
>"Netpicker's Guide to the X-Files." If they wanted to close down sites,
>I'd bet would have started with me. I haven't heard anything, and I'm not
>going to worry.
>
>Kymberlee
>
>kkr...@elnet.com
>Check out the _Space Cases_ home page at:
>http://aea16.k12.ia.us/ricke/SpaceCases.html
Be afraid, Kymberlee. Be very afraid. They *are* coming after web page
owners, even those who merely put in links on their pages to the official
web site. I have this on very good authority.
While on the one hand I certainly support intellectual property rights,
and am opposed to rampant copyright violations, I have to also agree that
it really stinks to start going after some of the best free advertising
in the world with a sledgehammer like this.
****************************************************************
Sarah Stegall*http://www.webcom.com/munchkyn*munc...@netcom.com
I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather,
not screaming in terror like his passengers...
****************************************************************
munc...@netcom.com
>Methinks that the reason why some XF pages are going down is because of
>Compuserve and America Online. Both probably have strict agreements
Nope. Fox is going after all websites. I have it on the best
authority. They are going after any site that contains copyrighted
images or content.
>Now, if FOX starts going around to ALL internet providers, asking them to
>pull down specific pages, then is when I will start a hissy fit *grin*
>--
>
>TJ Currey
Better warm up that hissy fit, then. They're on their way.
Mr. Mike
munc...@netcom.com writes:
>Nope. Fox is going after all websites. I have it on the best
>authority. They are going after any site that contains copyrighted
>images or content.
Presumably this is copyrighted images or content that Fox holds the
rights to.
Bennetta Schmidt
In <munchkynD...@netcom.com> munc...@netcom.com writes:
>
>
>Be afraid, Kymberlee. Be very afraid. They *are* coming after web
page
>owners, even those who merely put in links on their pages to the
official
>web site.
Can you say "Cut off your nose to spite your Face?"
Bennetta
Kurt Baskette
In article <4qrnsb$1d...@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com>, UFQ...@prodigy.com
says...
>
> I extend my most heartfelt condolences to all my good buddies out
>there who have their very own X-Files homepage/site. FOX is cracking
>down on copyright infringement and your page is probably going to get
>yanked. According to announcements and lamentations of pain from a
>person shouting in the Wilderness of the X-FILES FAN FORUM Compuserve is
>crackdown on freeloading downloading fans who are paying fees to run
>copyrighted materials on their webpages. FOX has not sent out official
>announcements but I expect it will.
>
>- AJ_is_A_Fannish_Mum UFQ...@prodigy.com
>X-FILES Forever/FOX is pulling this newgroup tomorrow
It's that huge Government/Entertainment/ISP/AOL/Compuserve
conspiracy... Really pisses me off.
--
Kurt Baskette
Member and Founder of Deep Cover (It's an X-File thing)
**New Members Welcome**
JEREMIAH SMITH: "...and you give them happiness
CANCER MAN:"We appease their conscience, anyone who can appease a man's
conscience can
take his freedom away from him."
dith
> In article <waldo-27069...@pm1l5.elnet.com>,
> Kymberlee <wa...@elnet.com> wrote:
>
> >Well, I seriously doubt this. If they were going to let out after us web
> >page owners, they would have come after me ages ago. I have the
> >"Netpicker's Guide to the X-Files." If they wanted to close down sites,
> >I'd bet would have started with me. I haven't heard anything, and I'm not
> >going to worry.
> >
> >Kymberlee
[snip]
>
>
> Be afraid, Kymberlee. Be very afraid. They *are* coming after web page
> owners, even those who merely put in links on their pages to the official
> web site. I have this on very good authority.
[snip]
> ****************************************************************
> Sarah Stegall*http://www.webcom.com/munchkyn*munc...@netcom.com
> I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather,
> not screaming in terror like his passengers...
> ****************************************************************
OK, well, that's very nice, Sarah, but unless I see some sites and what
was on those sites that caused Fox to try to take them down and a report
stating the success of the activity, _I'm_ not going to worry either.
Let's not be alarmist about this, and let's not spread idle rumors,
either. If you have it "on good authority", then let us know _what_
authority and what you know about what's going on. Otherwise these are
very idle threats.
Free speech on the Internet can only die if we all roll over and play dead.
I can see Fox coming after stills and sound archives and even creative
archives, because those incorporate some copyrighted materials. Maybe. I
can also see good legal reasons why Fox wouldn't give a damn about most of
those sites.
There is NO legal reason that I know of for Fox to shut down sites like
Kymberlee's or mine, which only _discuss_ the show. None. Now I don't
claim to be a legal eagle, but I am a computing consultant at a university
that is very concerned about things like free speech online and has
already gotten involved in one legal battle.
Let's all keep our heads.
dith
--
--dith
(check out my review/preview of the latest and the upcoming X-Files episode: http://staff.feldberg.brandeis.edu/~tabron/xreview.html)
Chriss Grawburg
>>In article <munchkynD...@netcom.com>, munc...@netcom.com
>>wrote:
>>
>> Be afraid, Kymberlee. Be very afraid. They *are* coming after web
page
>> owners, even those who merely put in links on their pages to the
official
>> web site. I have this on very good authority.
>[snip]
>> ****************************************************************
>> Sarah Stegall*http://www.webcom.com/munchkyn*munc...@netcom.com
>ew...@lizardlounge.com (dith) wrote:
>
>OK, well, that's very nice, Sarah, but unless I see some sites and what
>was on those sites that caused Fox to try to take them down and a
report
>stating the success of the activity, _I'm_ not going to worry either.
>Let's not be alarmist about this, and let's not spread idle rumors,
>either. If you have it "on good authority", then let us know _what_
>authority and what you know about what's going on. Otherwise these are
>very idle threats.
< snip >
New around here, Ewok?
Got the Official Guide? Take a look at the title page - does the name of
the researcher bear a striking resemblance to that of Ms Munchkyn's or
*what*?
SS has long ago established herself in these parts. You - well, this
would be the first post *I've* come across.
~ Chriss in Detroit ~
Brent Charland
I can't hold back any longer. I am trying to find a copy of an article on
copyright that explains what is happening here. I will continue looking
and provide the reference when it turns up. As I recall, the
situation isn't that FOX is just being mean, their are serious legal
ramifications of all this. Basically, they have to be seen actively
protecting their rights to the tradmarked material or they could be in
danger of losing control. It's like squatters rights. If someone uses your
property for a long time and you don't do anything about it, they can end
up having some legal claim on your property. To protect against that you
have to show official evidence of protecting your claim through letters
and lawyers etc. My family went through this with neighbours at our
cottage who had been using part of our driveway to access their cottage.
They had been doing it for years (before we even built our cottage they
were driving over our property) and we had to move quickly to take action
because the time limit was about to run out. Anyway, the same thing
happens with trademarked stuff. In the article I'm looking for it
describes how it is a requirement to put the little (tm) after Coke and
Kleenex, etc. in novels. Almost nobody does and it isn't unusual for the
trademark owners to follow it up with an official letter from their
lawyers pointing this out. It's a way of continuing to demonstrate that
you are actively protecting your rights. After all, where do they draw the
line? We all know that most of these people are just fans and aren't doing
the Web sites for profit, but it might be possible for someone to argue
that because they didn't mind people using the trademarked stuff then it's
OK to use it for other things. That's the gist of the article and I will
post the reference as soon as I can find it so that interested parties can
follow up if they want.
Cheers,
Brent
(munc...@netcom.com) writes:
> In article <waldo-27069...@pm1l5.elnet.com>,
> Kymberlee <wa...@elnet.com> wrote:
>
>>Well, I seriously doubt this. If they were going to let out after us web
>>page owners, they would have come after me ages ago. I have the
>>"Netpicker's Guide to the X-Files." If they wanted to close down sites,
>>I'd bet would have started with me. I haven't heard anything, and I'm not
>>going to worry.
>>
>>Kymberlee
>>
>>kkr...@elnet.com
>>Check out the _Space Cases_ home page at:
>>http://aea16.k12.ia.us/ricke/SpaceCases.html
>
>
> Be afraid, Kymberlee. Be very afraid. They *are* coming after web page
> owners, even those who merely put in links on their pages to the official
> web site. I have this on very good authority.
>
> While on the one hand I certainly support intellectual property rights,
> and am opposed to rampant copyright violations, I have to also agree that
> it really stinks to start going after some of the best free advertising
> in the world with a sledgehammer like this.
>
Jim Steele
ew...@lizardlounge.com (dith) wrote:
>
>I can see Fox coming after stills and sound archives and even creative
>archives, because those incorporate some copyrighted materials. Maybe. I
>can also see good legal reasons why Fox wouldn't give a damn about most of
>those sites.
>
Does anyone know if the great amorphous godlike gossamer is in danger? Oh god, don't let it be SO! (*mulder-like sobs*)
Mara :9
Jacee
munc...@netcom.com wrote:
>Nope. Fox is going after all websites. I have it on the best
>authority. They are going after any site that contains copyrighted
>images or content.
Hmm.......what about all X-Files' fanzines and fan art work *out
there*? Isn't this a violation of copyrights as well?
munc...@netcom.com
In article <ewok-02079...@slip-22-9.slip.shore.net>,
dith <ew...@lizardlounge.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Be afraid, Kymberlee. Be very afraid. They *are* coming after web page
>> owners, even those who merely put in links on their pages to the official
>> web site. I have this on very good authority.
>> ****************************************************************
>> Sarah Stegall*http://www.webcom.com/munchkyn*munc...@netcom.com
>> I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather,
>> not screaming in terror like his passengers...
>> ****************************************************************
>
>was on those sites that caused Fox to try to take them down and a report
>stating the success of the activity, _I'm_ not going to worry either.
>Let's not be alarmist about this, and let's not spread idle rumors,
>either. If you have it "on good authority", then let us know _what_
>authority and what you know about what's going on. Otherwise these are
>very idle threats.
Okay. How about the keeper of the Official Website for The X-Files? He
works for the suits. He told me that they are going after any site using
their copyrighted images (say goodbye to pictures of Mulder/Scully on your
home page) and any site *linking* to their internal pages. In other
words, they want people going through the front door of the site, not just
zipping past to their favorite episode or whatever.
I might understand their going after the linking if it was a matter of
saving bandwidth. Some people, myself included, merely put a hyperlink
to a site on their page. When my page gets downloaded, the server with
the other link takes a hit, too. Maybe they are trying to cut down on
their bandwidth load.
>Free speech on the Internet can only die if we all roll over and play dead.
Did I say roll over and play dead? I said beware. I didn't mean to sound
alarmist, just to warn people that being complacent can be a Bad Idea.
>I can see Fox coming after stills and sound archives and even creative
>archives, because those incorporate some copyrighted materials. Maybe. I
>can also see good legal reasons why Fox wouldn't give a damn about most of
>those sites.
Explain these legal reasons to me. My understanding of copyright law is
that if you do not vigorously *defend* your right to control the use of
images, for example, then at a later date you may find yourself with no
rights to speak of in the material. Most of the web sites I have seen,
including my own, incorporate at least a couple of small images of Mulder
and Scully. Knowing this, when the DDEB wrote the David Duchovny FAQ, we
included mostly images of David from his OTHER works, and only one of
Mulder. I understand why they would come after the images. I don't
understand why they would go after fan fic, and I don't believe they are.
I should point out that when Fox is distributing publicity kits, they
routinely include some images which the media are allowed to copy as
freely as they please.
>There is NO legal reason that I know of for Fox to shut down sites like
>Kymberlee's or mine, which only _discuss_ the show. None.
Then explain to me why one of the first sites to be shut down was
Stephanie's, which mostly contained fan fiction and discussion of the
show. The fan fiction is a grey area, since while the characters are
copyrighted by Fox the stories cannot be. Do you think they are going
after fan fiction? I don't. So I can only assume they went after Steph
because they knew her ISP would roll over and play dead.
Now I don't
>claim to be a legal eagle, but I am a computing consultant at a university
>that is very concerned about things like free speech online and has
>already gotten involved in one legal battle.
I don't think CONTENT per se has anything to do with it. If you were
discussing the show, but also posting lots of pictures of Mulder and
Scully, they'd come after you as well. I think the folks who have the
most to worry about are the folks putting up pages with hundreds of
images from the show, as well as sound bites.
>Let's all keep our heads.
>--dith
I quite agree. You know, there are solutions to this mess. For one
thing, Fox could make available on the net some images they don't mind us
displaying, perhaps with "copyright" embedded in the margins. I'd be
happy to confine myself to officially sanctioned images, since they are
only there on my page to illustrate what I produce anyway. Since they
have granted *permission* to use these images, Fox still retains
control. I could live with that. It protects their intellectual
property rights as well as allowing fans to maintain their pages.
>(check out my review/preview of the latest and the upcoming X-Files episode: http://staff.feldberg.brandeis.edu/~tabron/xreview.html)
I did. It's awesome. You have nothing to worry about from Fox, I am sure.
Sarah
munc...@netcom.com
Good points, but don't confuse trademark law with copyright law. They
are not the same. Trademarks are easier to lose, and that is why they
are more aggressively pursued. Trademarks have been lost for such
previous brand names as cellophane and aspirin. Personally, I suspect
the drive to shut down web sites has more to do with the use of X-Files
images. It's hard to see how anyone just putting up a web page that
*talks* about the show would pose a threat to Fox's intellectual property
rights. A site loaded with images, video captures, and sound bites is
another proposition.
I am the last person to argue in favor of violating intellectual property
rights. But I am sure another solution to this problem could be worked
out. Why can't Fox put up a page of images they don't mind us
copying/linking to? If they give *permission* for our use of unaltered
images from the show, they are still retaining control of them. But
since Fox can't make money off this proposition, I doubt it would
get their attention.
munc...@netcom.com
In article <4rf23q$8...@baja.pacificrim.net>,
Jim Steele <cy...@pacificrim.net> wrote:
>ew...@lizardlounge.com (dith) wrote:
>>
>>I can see Fox coming after stills and sound archives and even creative
>>archives, because those incorporate some copyrighted materials. Maybe. I
>>can also see good legal reasons why Fox wouldn't give a damn about most of
>>those sites.
>>
>
>
>Mara :9
>
I suspect that the Gossamer site is in more danger of being shut down for
economic reasons; it's gotta be expensive to store 250 Mb of fanfic. I
doubt Fox would come after fanfic. What are they gonna do--erase my hard
drive?
munc...@netcom.com
In article <a02632.836146071@giant>,
Mr. Mike <a02...@giant.mindlink.net> wrote:
>munc...@netcom.com writes:
>
>>Nope. Fox is going after all websites. I have it on the best
>>authority. They are going after any site that contains copyrighted
>>images or content.
>
>rights to.
>
Yes. I'm sorry that was not clear from the context. Obviously they
can't do or say a damn thing about my reviews or someone else's original
content on a web page.
munc...@netcom.com
In article <4rhqnj$a...@neko.syix.com>, Jacee <dana...@syix.com> wrote:
>munc...@netcom.com wrote:
>
>>Nope. Fox is going after all websites. I have it on the best
>>authority. They are going after any site that contains copyrighted
>>images or content.
>
>there*? Isn't this a violation of copyrights as well?
>
>
Fan art work is original art work, unless it is something like a collage
which directly incorporates an image trademarked by Fox. If you draw a
portrait of Mulder or Scully, you're safe; even AOL, which posts no fan
fic or images, uses fan art. Fan fiction is a grey area. Use of
copyrighted/trademarked images without permission is illegal, but
everything *else* in the story that is original belongs to the writer. So
if you rename your characters "Reynard Muldrake" and "Diana Lesky", you're
probably safe. :)
As for the fanzines, I have heard X-Files staffers say that Fox
squashes them when they can find them, i.e., if someone shows up at an
official con trying to sell fanzines out of their hotel room they can
come in for some heat. Fox does not bother to go to fan cons to check
out the 'zines because those cons are so small. It will be interesting to
see what, if anything, they do about X-Files 'zines at WorldCon. The
'zines, since they are sold, are making money off a Fox trademarked
property, and are a direct threat to their property rights. It's more
likely the suits will go after the publishers than the authors. I've
been reprinted in a lot of 'zines, but since I don't take a dime for it
I've never had any trouble from Fox.
munc...@netcom.com
In article <4rdrt6$14...@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com>,
Chriss Grawburg <ZFV...@prodigy.com> wrote:
>
>New around here, Ewok?
>
>Got the Official Guide? Take a look at the title page - does the name of
>the researcher bear a striking resemblance to that of Ms Munchkyn's or
>*what*?
>
>SS has long ago established herself in these parts. You - well, this
>would be the first post *I've* come across.
>
>~ Chriss in Detroit ~
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Back up that truck, Chriss. Judith "ewok" Tabron has
been around longer than I have, and has posted a LOT. She's one of the
best fan fic writers and reviewers the X-Files has. I know what she was
saying, she was calling on me to disclose my sources and elaborate on what
I said. No problem, and I have done so. I didn't get bent out of shape by
her post, so you don't need to either. I appreciate the vote of
confidence, but it wasn't necessary. Judith is good people and wanted more
info, that's all. She has her opinion, and I don't entirely agree with her
level of concern on this issue, but that's okay. We are both grownups. In
no way did I view her message as a personal attack.
dith
> In article <ewok-02079...@slip-22-9.slip.shore.net>,
> dith <ew...@lizardlounge.com> wrote:
> > If you have it "on good authority", then let us know _what_
> >authority and what you know about what's going on. Otherwise these are
> >very idle threats.
>
> Okay. How about the keeper of the Official Website for The X-Files? He
> works for the suits. He told me that they are going after any site using
> their copyrighted images (say goodbye to pictures of Mulder/Scully on your
> home page) and any site *linking* to their internal pages. In other
> words, they want people going through the front door of the site, not just
> zipping past to their favorite episode or whatever.
O.K., this is much more specific. This is Delphi, not Fox or Ten-Thirteen
productions. Delphi thought it was going to attract a lot of people to its
web site by being the "official" web site (a distinction I am sure it
purchased from either Fox or Ten-Thirteen.) It is beginning to realize
that having the "official" version of anything doesn't mean squat on the
Web. (I know this because I know the artist who originally designed some
of the site, as long as we are including authentication -- they didn't use
his designs.) Delphi bought rights to those images they display and
therefore don't want people to duplicate OR display (via a link that calls
that image) those images on other websites.
I think they're full of it; I think even a link that calls the picture
could be considered "fair use" under current copyright law (the person who
is "redistributing" the image via that link is not doing it for personal
profit and is not, strictly speaking, making _copies_ of that image.)
Actual copies of the picture on others' servers MIGHT be considered to
violate copyright law -- but the argument could be made that it was done
to save Delphi's own bandwidth. If they want to take down mirror sites,
they need to expect an uppage on their own bandwidth (which I expect they
actually want, but is not really in the best interest of the consumer --
us -- who doesn't want to run into a clog when we try to get the picture.
The way around this, of course, is to PROVIDE a link just to the front door.
If I find out that Delphi actually forced the removal of Vikram's X-Files
site, a site I loved, I am going to REMOVE the link I have to their front
door and change my page to advise people NOT to go to Delphi's "Official"
page.
> >I can see Fox coming after stills and sound archives and even creative
> >archives, because those incorporate some copyrighted materials. Maybe. I
> >can also see good legal reasons why Fox wouldn't give a damn about most of
> >those sites.
>
> Explain these legal reasons to me. My understanding of copyright law is
> that if you do not vigorously *defend* your right to control the use of
> images, for example, then at a later date you may find yourself with no
> rights to speak of in the material. Most of the web sites I have seen,
> including my own, incorporate at least a couple of small images of Mulder
> and Scully. Knowing this, when the DDEB wrote the David Duchovny FAQ, we
> included mostly images of David from his OTHER works, and only one of
> Mulder. I understand why they would come after the images. I don't
> understand why they would go after fan fic, and I don't believe they are.
I could name some reasons why Ten-Thirteen would want to go after fanfic
-- they are fiction uses of copyrighted characters, and represent those
characters in ways not intended by the show's creators. But I don't
believe they are. As I said, I believe it's Delphi that's the culprit,
because they're trying to protect their own investment in "The X-Files"
presence on the Web -- which they were stupid to spend big money on in the
first place, given the nature of the Web, which they didn't understand
when they got into the business. Too damn bad for Delphi.
> >There is NO legal reason that I know of for Fox to shut down sites like
> >Kymberlee's or mine, which only _discuss_ the show. None.
>
> Then explain to me why one of the first sites to be shut down was
> Stephanie's, which mostly contained fan fiction and discussion of the
> show. The fan fiction is a grey area, since while the characters are
> copyrighted by Fox the stories cannot be. Do you think they are going
> after fan fiction? I don't. So I can only assume they went after Steph
> because they knew her ISP would roll over and play dead.
You say "mostly" -- were there copyrighted images on her site? If not, and
you don't believe they're going after fan fiction, and they legally CAN'T
go after discussion (they may be trying to, but that could be challenged
and won in any court under First Amendment rights, even Antonin Scalia's
-- well, maybe not Scalia's :-) then why WOULD they be going after
Stephanie's site? To say that they did it because they knew her ISP would
roll over and play dead doesn't make sense. It makes it sound as though
Delphi has some sort of a holy war going against other sites. If THAT'S
the case, then it is indeed illegal and if anyone bothers to try to take
them to court over it, they will undoubtedly win.
The rolling over of the ISP is the morally untenable position in this
scenario. ISP's need to stand up for their own rights and the rights of
their subscribers. Stephanie should hustle her butt right over to another
ISP (maybe a bigger one like MCI) and put her site right back up.
> I don't think CONTENT per se has anything to do with it. If you were
> discussing the show, but also posting lots of pictures of Mulder and
> Scully, they'd come after you as well. I think the folks who have the
> most to worry about are the folks putting up pages with hundreds of
> images from the show, as well as sound bites.
Well, if they're posting images and sound bites, they may be reproducing
copyrighted material. While I don't agree that they are, that issue has
yet to be settled in a court of law. In ANY case, we now have a much more
specific issue: Someone (probably Delphi) is trying to shut down sites
that reproduce copyrighted images and sounds from the show. That's a much
smaller proposition than you originally raised. I think people are
likelier to be interested in challenges against their own rights (and less
likely to panic) when something is said VERY SPECIFICALLY about what's
going on.
As I said, sites that discuss the show and probably even fanfic sites have
nothing to fear.
You want to have art that isn't in violation of copyright? Draw some
yourself, or get an artist to do it. The fan world is full of great
artists, and some of them are not averse to doing their work for Web
distribution.
If you want to use art from the show, go ahead. I think you're within your
rights. Be prepared to go to court to prove it (and warn your ISP that you
may sue *them* for violation of First Amendment rights if they try to shut
you down.)
>
> I did. It's awesome. You have nothing to worry about from Fox, I am sure.
>
> Sarah
Thanks, Sarah! I've always liked your reviews, too. I don't think I have
anything to worry about from Fox just because I don't use the pictures --
but I hope they're not upset about the negative reviews I keep giving
these cruddy Third Season episodes! :-)
--
--dith
munc...@netcom.com
In article <ewok-13079...@slip-6-10.slip.shore.net>,
dith <ew...@lizardlounge.com> wrote:
>
>O.K., this is much more specific. This is Delphi, not Fox or Ten-Thirteen
>productions. Delphi thought it was going to attract a lot of people to its
>web site by being the "official" web site (a distinction I am sure it
>purchased from either Fox or Ten-Thirteen.) It is beginning to realize
The distinctions among these entities are pretty blurred by the fact that
Fox and Delphi are both owned by Rupert Murdoch. Delphi was made the
Official site because it is owned by the same people who own Fox Network
(and TV Guide, for that matter). They probably did not have to purchase a
darn thing. I don't know who "owns" Ten Thirteen (probably Carter), but
it's tied so heavily to Fox's tail it probably does not have the
independence to market X-Files through some other site.
>that having the "official" version of anything doesn't mean squat on the
>Web. (I know this because I know the artist who originally designed some
>of the site, as long as we are including authentication -- they didn't use
>his designs.) Delphi bought rights to those images they display and
>therefore don't want people to duplicate OR display (via a link that calls
>that image) those images on other websites.
The rights are still owned by Fox, since Delphi does not need to buy
them. The official pages are covered in copyright notices which name
Twentieth Century Fox as the owner of the images.
>
>I think they're full of it; I think even a link that calls the picture
>could be considered "fair use" under current copyright law (the person who
>is "redistributing" the image via that link is not doing it for personal
>profit and is not, strictly speaking, making _copies_ of that image.)
Profit has nothing to do with it. The second part, not making copies of
that images, is the strongest part of your argument. I agree 100% with
you that simply linking to a page can hardly be considered theft of
intellectual property rights, any more than citing a book in a list of
references is violation of copyright. Or even more to the point, giving
out the library call number of an image.
>Actual copies of the picture on others' servers MIGHT be considered to
>violate copyright law -- but the argument could be made that it was done
>to save Delphi's own bandwidth.
If this worked, we could go to court to argue that people who copy CDs
illegally onto cassettes are actually *saving* the recording companies
money and time and the bother of producing copies. Nope, don't think
this argument will fly. I don't think there's any question that copying
the images and sounds outright constitutes a violation of copyright law
that exceeds fair use. I can quote dialogue from the show in a review:
that's classic "fair use", but I don't think I could get away with
posting the script.
If they want to take down mirror sites,
>they need to expect an uppage on their own bandwidth (which I expect they
>actually want, but is not really in the best interest of the consumer --
>us -- who doesn't want to run into a clog when we try to get the picture.
I don't think they care about the best interests of the consumer. :)
>If I find out that Delphi actually forced the removal of Vikram's X-Files
>site, a site I loved, I am going to REMOVE the link I have to their front
>door and change my page to advise people NOT to go to Delphi's "Official"
>page.
I know nothing about that. And according to Sheryl Clay, this is a
tempest in a teapot anyway. :)
>I could name some reasons why Ten-Thirteen would want to go after fanfic
>-- they are fiction uses of copyrighted characters, and represent those
>characters in ways not intended by the show's creators. But I don't
>believe they are. As
They aren't. I don't think Carter minds the fan fic, as long as his
writers don't read it. Or write it. :)
>I said, I believe it's Delphi that's the culprit,
Delphi is the mask; Fox network is the face.
>You say "mostly" -- were there copyrighted images on her site? If not, and
Apparently so, since her site is back up with no images.
>The rolling over of the ISP is the morally untenable position in this
>scenario. ISP's need to stand up for their own rights and the rights of
>their subscribers. Stephanie should hustle her butt right over to another
>ISP (maybe a bigger one like MCI) and put her site right back up.
Shoulder to shoulder with you on this one, Dith. I'd give any ISP who
shut me down holy h-e-double toothpicks over it. Especially if, instead
of copying an image, I merely linked to it.
>Well, if they're posting images and sound bites, they may be reproducing
>copyrighted material. While I don't agree that they are, that issue has
Of course the images and sounds of the show are copyrighted. It says
so right on the screen at the end of every episode. No question.
>yet to be settled in a court of law. In ANY case, we now have a much more
>specific issue: Someone (probably Delphi) is trying to shut down sites
>that reproduce copyrighted images and sounds from the show. That's a much
>smaller proposition than you originally raised.
You may have me confused with the original postere here? I thought I was
posting to warn people that Fox *is* coming after websites (so I am told
by the webkeeper at Delphi), and images are a primary target. They will
probably be the ONLY target (since that is their only LEGAL target), but
the letter of the law will not restrain them from trying to bully people
into shutting down websites if they think they can get away with it. I
think what's at stake on a fundamental level here is Fox's control--and
I mean utter complete and total control--of every single aspect of this
show and fans' reaction to it. This is hard for folks to comprehend, it
was hard for ME to comprehend until I met it in person several times, but
Fox Mulder's level of paranoia is nothing compared to the absolute
dedication to control practiced by the Fox suits. They will not release
any kind of control over their property unless cold hard cash is
involved. If the fans learn anything from this experience, I hope they
get over the warm/fuzzy idea that large corporations in the entertainment
business think of them as anything other than suckers to be milked of
their last dollar. Any generous impulses residing in the body of a
network are ruthlessly excised.
I think people are
>likelier to be interested in challenges against their own rights (and less
>likely to panic) when something is said VERY SPECIFICALLY about what's
>going on.
Ah, but for Fox to be specific would be to lessen the impact of a fear
campaign, no? The more panicked we get, the better. Maybe more timid
souls will refrain from putting up their own websites (especially
websites far superior to the Official ones), and go back to being the
passive consumers Fox wants us to be, dutifully shelling out for fuzzzy
video capture 8 x 10s at conventions. I agree specific information is
good, but it is not likely to be forthcoming for exactly these reasons.
More sites will be shut down through fear than litigation, I am sure.
While I warned Kymberlee to be afraid, I intended that to be a warning
that yes, Fox is coming after websites. A warning is always good. It is
always appropriate to yell "fire" ina crowded theatre when there is
actually a fire.
>If you want to use art from the show, go ahead. I think you're within your
>rights. Be prepared to go to court to prove it (and warn your ISP that you
>may sue *them* for violation of First Amendment rights if they try to shut
>you down.)
I am quite sure that, as long as the art involved is not merely a tracing
over of a copyrighted image, manipulation of a copyrighted image (for my
private enjoyment, I once put a Cossack mustache on David Duchovny, but I
can never put it up for public view) or using it in a collage, Fox can do
nothing. The original artwork buttons on Gil Treviso's fan fiction site
are so much cuter than Fox's artwork anyway, I'd rather steal from Gil
than Ten Thirteen. :)
>Thanks, Sarah! I've always liked your reviews, too. I don't think I have
>anything to worry about from Fox just because I don't use the pictures --
>but I hope they're not upset about the negative reviews I keep giving
>these cruddy Third Season episodes! :-)
Not a chance. They may not like them, but they can't do a damn thing
about them. And they need well thought out critiques to keep 'em honest.
They know that at Ten Thirteen. Fox may not, but who gives a damn?