J.A.I.L.E.D. - Anti-Piracy Organization
Joseph Braviak
in Dallas, Tx at the Video Software Dealers Association Convention:
Japanese Animation Industry Unites to Form Anti-Piracy Organization
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
The Japanese Animation industry has formed an anti-piracy organization
called J.A.I.L.E.D. (Japanese Animation Industry Legal Enforcement
Division), in an effort to collectively protect the Intellectual property
rights of its members. An official announcement will be delivered today
by John O'Donnell, Managing Director of Central Park Media, at the Video
Software Dealers Association (VSDA) convention in Dallas.
Participating members of J.A.I.L.E.D. include AD Vision Inc, Animeigo Inc.
, Central Park Media Corp., Manga Entertainment Inc., Books Nippan,
Pioneer Entertainment (USA) LP, The Right Stuf, Viz Communications, and
Voyager Entertainment Inc.
J.A.I.L.E.D. is represented by an expert intellectual Property attorney
Jules Zalon, who with over 20 years of experience in the entertainment
industry, has successfully seized bootleg property and prosecuted
offenders throughout the country. Mr Zalon will work closely with the
organization in its quest to stop all future pirating of copyrighted
material, on VHS, laser disc, CD, CD-ROM, or any other format belonging
to these companies.
Additionally, a 1-(800) number has been established to assist in
informing J.A.I.L.E.D. of pirates and bootleggers. If you have any
information call:
1-(800) 917-9799
Japanese Animation represents an exciting new genre which has been hailed
by the press, with recent articles appearing in Wired Magazine, Billboard,
and the New York Times. The industry has grown exponentially in the
past five years, and J.A.I.L.E.D. demonstrates a unified effort to
eliminate piracy in the Japanese Animation Industry.
J.A.I.L.E.D.
250 West 57th Street Suite 317
New York, N.Y. 10107
David E Wills
<Goose-stepping around the room> Hai! Hai! Hai!
Plaidy
: Japanese Animation represents an exciting new genre which has been hailed
^^^^^^^^^
Uhhhh.... not really ^_^
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Aaron Newton | "Flames Suck!"- Me |
amne...@starbase.spd.louisville.edu |__________________________________|
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Gordon Waters
Joseph Braviak <MTH...@prodigy.com> wrote:
>-----------------------------------------
<...>
>The Japanese Animation industry has formed an anti-piracy organization
>called J.A.I.L.E.D. (Japanese Animation Industry Legal Enforcement
>Division), in an effort to collectively protect the Intellectual property
<...>
>offenders throughout the country. Mr Zalon will work closely with the
>organization in its quest to stop all future pirating of copyrighted
>material, on VHS, laser disc, CD, CD-ROM, or any other format belonging
>to these companies.
Aha! Note the last phrase: "BELONG TO THESE COMPANIES". It appears they
DO know where their legal rights stand (ie, THIER licenced products- NOT
the unlicenced material...). In this measure, more power to them! (just
please leave the un-licenced stuff totally alone, if you will...)
I know that there are a bunch of us here who have been on an
anti-bootlegger crusade for YEARS. (see the Troll post as reference as to
how much bootleggers hate us Anime-X guys ^_^) Heck, I've personally
called/wrote companies to report bootleggers in the past... and what did
they do? Nothing. zip. zero. Maybe NOW they will get something done...
Hmmm... I wonder... Think I might make up some small flyers:
(start form)
Greetings.
It has come to notice that ______________________ (insert bootlegger
name) has been selling illegal items in violation of the copyright of
___________________ (insert US anime company name here) This activity has
been reported to:
J.A.I.L.E.D.
250 West 57th Street Suite 317
New York, N.Y. 10107
J.A.I.L.E.D. (Japanese Animation Industry Legal Enforcement Division),
is the legal organization formed to stamp out illegal bootlegging in the
japanese animation industry. It is intended to stop all illegal
transactions of U.S. LICENCED japanese animation products.
It is recommended that you curtail the selling activities of this dealer
to avoid legal liability in this incident.
_____________________________ Signature, witness/ reporting party.
(end form)
Hee hee... now THIS should get some con organizers in gear.... (not that
I generally mean fantasy/sci-fi cons here... most anime cons already do a
good job of policing bootlegging now...)
Feel free to copy my form here and use it... I'll probably show up with a
stack of them at ALL the cons around here...
REgards,
Gordon.
--
///THE CODE NAME IS / To Join DP Mail.List:lios!lovely-an...@cs.ubc.ca
//LOVELY ANGEL... // ~//~~\\ // //~\\ ~~//~ \\ / //~\\ /|| // //~\\
/Gordon Waters //// // // // //__// // \\/ //__// /--|| // //__//
gwa...@crl.com // _//__// // // \\ // // // / || // // \\
Joe Perez
: Cool! I want a JAILED uniform with the black leather thigh-boots!
: <Goose-stepping around the room> Hai! Hai! Hai!
Better keep your fansubs hidden in the cupboard, or the only "jailed"
uniform you'll be wearing is the one with the black and white horizontal
stripes ;)
Joe Perez
David E Wills
>Better keep your fansubs hidden in the cupboard, or the only "jailed"
>uniform you'll be wearing is the one with the black and white horizontal
>stripes ;)
Why? I didn't make the copies.
Are thes tapes like illegal contraband? Cool!
Mabey I can plant a few on this guy I don't like and have the FBI and
JAILED bust him! Yea yea, that's it!
Makes me wonder why there's a <record> button on the VCR at all. Anything
I record violates *some* law *somewhere*... Hmph. Mabey I should start
collecting automatic guns and high-explosives, at least I know the cops
won't bother me for thoes compared to these eeeeEEEEeeeevil tapes.
Richard Llewellyn
"Steven Miale" <smi...@cs.indiana.edu> writes:
>
>In article <3q1ns3$27...@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com>,
>Joseph Braviak <MTH...@prodigy.com> wrote:
>>The Japanese Animation industry has formed an anti-piracy organization
>>called J.A.I.L.E.D. (Japanese Animation Industry Legal Enforcement
>>Division), in an effort to collectively protect the Intellectual property
>
>"The Right Stuf"?
Both have distributed a few anime although they aren't big players, as
yet. The Right Stuf has distributed older English dubbed titles like
Astro Boy and newer subbed things like Towards the Terra and Mars.
>
>>J.A.I.L.E.D. is represented by an expert intellectual Property attorney
>>Jules Zalon, who with over 20 years of experience in the entertainment
>>industry, has successfully seized bootleg property and prosecuted
>
>considers fandubbing "bootlegging" - well, this means us.
True, although I think it's up to the companies who created J.A.I.L.E.D.
rather than Mr. Zalon.
>
>I would like to hear whether they will be pursuing fansubbers and fandubbers
>or not. Woodhead-san?
>
>>Japanese Animation represents an exciting new genre which has been hailed
>> and the New York Times. The industry has grown exponentially in the
>>past five years, and J.A.I.L.E.D. demonstrates a unified effort to
>>eliminate piracy in the Japanese Animation Industry.
>
>the companies that were founded and grew by our money stab us in the back.
Unprovable fan myth number one. Sorry, but fan subbing has had only a
minimal impact on my anime viewing.
>
>Anyone else feel betrayed?
Nope. There may have been some justification of fan subbing years ago
(before my time) when anime was genuinely difficult to find in the U.S.
There is no justification now. There is plenty of translated anime now
available. It is easy to get imported anime. All of today's arguments
come down to the bottom line: there are some fans who are unwilling to
pay for their anime, they want cheap, preferably free, entertainment.
And I admit I am as guilty of this as anyone else but I'm not going
to bash or boycott the anime companies for exercising their rights.
>
>Steve
>--
>Steven Miale <http://www.cs.indiana.edu/hyplan/smiale.html>
Yours in anime,
Richard Llewellyn BLUE SEED * MOTHER, SAIGO
Science Library, University of Georgia NO SHOJO EVE * MIDNIGHT
Internet: rl...@uga.cc.uga.edu EYE GOKU * MAGIC KNIGHT
Telephone: (706) 542-6642 RAYEARTH * TONDE BOORIN *
FAX: (706) 542-7907 GREEN LEGEND RAN * ELLCIA *
Douglas Leo Eckhart
Richard Llewellyn <RL...@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU> wrote:
>
>Nope. There may have been some justification of fan subbing years ago
>(before my time) when anime was genuinely difficult to find in the U.S.
>There is no justification now. There is plenty of translated anime now
>available. It is easy to get imported anime. All of today's arguments
>come down to the bottom line: there are some fans who are unwilling to
>pay for their anime, they want cheap, preferably free, entertainment.
>And I admit I am as guilty of this as anyone else but I'm not going
>to bash or boycott the anime companies for exercising their rights.
Well, I suppose this argument is valid if the anime that you want to watch
is the anime that is being released in the US. There are many anime
titles that would not market well to a mainstream audience and there are
TV series which tend to be too costly for American companies to import. I
admit, a desperate anime fan can import these themselves from Japan, but
there is still a the problem of understanding.
It seems hard for me to relate to a less litigious society, since I am
used to the way things are in the US. But, I am relatively convinced that
Japanese companies do not feel very threatened by fansubtitling and other
distribution. Not that this makes it any more ethical to distribute
fansubs, but it does seem to make me less concerned.
As far as the idea of crazed fans distributing fansubs of American
released anime, thereby cutting into company profits... Except when large
scale distribution is involved, I don't think it is much of a problem.
Afterall, I could rent Bubblegum Crisis and make a copy of it for all my
friends if I really wanted to and that would be much more likely to cut
into AnimEigo's profits... But why bother? Fansubs are a novelty because
they present a different point of view on the same story, which it would
be a shame to lose, but...
Anyway, I tried calling the J.A.I.L.E.D. phone number a few times, so far
it seems no one was there. Oh well....
..............................................................................
. D. Eckhart ."... the WWWA always functions in the interests .
. red...@raz.csc.ncsu.edu . of all mankind. It's guiding philosophy is the .
. dlec...@eos.ncsu.edu . 'enrichment of life.' ... " - Kei, Lovely Angel.
..............................................................................
Brett Middleton
>Hhmm.. have their number, email, or address handy for a catalog?
The Right Stuf International
P.O. Box 71309
Des Moines, IA 50325
Phone: 800-338-6827
Fax: 515-279-7434
email: at...@centsys.com
web: http://www.infonet.net/showcase/taitei/
Their web site has a downloadable text version of their catalog.
Brett
*SLMW 1.0* "It never hurts to help!" -- Eek
Enrique Conty
>>, Central Park Media Corp., Manga Entertainment Inc., Books Nippan,
>>Pioneer Entertainment (USA) LP, The Right Stuf, Viz Communications, and
>>Voyager Entertainment Inc.
>
>And what is "The Right Stuf"?
Books Nippan used to sell tapes under the US Renditions label. The Right
Stuff does Astroboy, Gigantor, and obscure but tasteful OVAs and movies.
Noticeably absent is Streamline Pictures.
--
Enrique Conty
co...@cig.mot.com
R. Bain
>Additionally, a 1-(800) number has been established to assist in
>informing J.A.I.L.E.D. of pirates and bootleggers. If you have any
>information call:
> 1-(800) 917-9799
that 'crank calls' to this number could cost them $$...but I'm not, so
I won't.
Arbane the Terrible (Hypocrite :)
Gilles Poitras
> You know, if I was a spiteful, petty, troublemaking person, I'd point out
> that 'crank calls' to this number could cost them $$...but I'm not, so
> I won't.
Be aware that when you call any 800 number they get to see the number you
are dialing from. However also be aware that federal regulations require
that 800 number calls from pay phones be free to the caller.
Actually lets see what else these folks announce/do. Keep your eyes out at
conventions for more info and please post here.
Nicholas Pappas
>Oooh, they are all getting together. Books Nippan, nani? And what is
>"The Right Stuf"?
Books Nippan...are you asking what it is!? I hope not. :)
The Right Stuf is a brand new company that sells a multitude of
products...kinda like Books Nippan.
>Well, on the plus side they will go after bootleggers. HOWEVER, if Mr. Zalon
>considers fandubbing "bootlegging" - well, this means us.
I hope they don't...I can understand the Licenced stuff, and I agree
they should beat the crap out of anyone who sells licenced material
illegally. BUT, why worry about the other stuff (as if they HAVE to
have the only market).
>I would like to hear whether they will be pursuing fansubbers and fandubbers
>or not. Woodhead-san?
Again...hope not. I've never gone through fansubbers -- but, that is
simply because I have never been able to find a fansubber who does
Patlabor, and Nexus is full up (so I can't get ahold of Gundam). <g>
>Hmmm... at $2 a pop, call early and often! (But not from your own phone,
>since 800 numbers are traced.)
What is this about $2 a pop?
800 numbers are tracable!? Huh, learn something everyday.
>Great. Fans work for years to help get japanese animation popular, and
>the companies that were founded and grew by our money stab us in the back.
Right On!
>Anyone else feel betrayed?
I don't feel betrayed yet, since I don't know all of the facts of this
little get-togehter, but I am starting to look at a few companies with
a critical eye.
Glad I am minoring in Japanese, maybe in 3 years when everything is
cracked down I will know enough to just laugh and buy the originals.
:)
Nick
Dae-Kyu Lee
: >"The Right Stuf"?
: The Right Stuf is a brand new company that sells a multitude of
: products...kinda like Books Nippan.
Hhmm.. have their number, email, or address handy for a catalog?
Steven E Barnes
Dae-Kyu Lee <dj...@flood.xnet.com> wrote:
>: >Oooh, they are all getting together. Books Nippan, nani? And what is
>: >"The Right Stuf"?
>
>: The Right Stuf is a brand new company that sells a multitude of
>: products...kinda like Books Nippan.
The Right Stuf has been doing releases of old stuff like Gigantor and
Astroboy for several years now. They are not new, and I don't have their
number.
-steve
Steve Pearl
>In article <3q1ns3$27...@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com>,
>Joseph Braviak <MTH...@prodigy.com> wrote:
>> This is the text of a news release dated May 22, 1995 that was given out
>>in Dallas, Tx at the Video Software Dealers Association Convention:
>>
>>Japanese Animation Industry Unites to Form Anti-Piracy Organization
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>-----------------------------------------
>>The Japanese Animation industry has formed an anti-piracy organization
>>called J.A.I.L.E.D. (Japanese Animation Industry Legal Enforcement
>>Division), in an effort to collectively protect the Intellectual property
>>rights of its members. An official announcement will be delivered today
>>by John O'Donnell, Managing Director of Central Park Media, at the Video
>>Software Dealers Association (VSDA) convention in Dallas.
>>
>>Participating members of J.A.I.L.E.D. include AD Vision Inc, Animeigo Inc.
>>, Central Park Media Corp., Manga Entertainment Inc., Books Nippan,
>>Pioneer Entertainment (USA) LP, The Right Stuf, Viz Communications, and
>>Voyager Entertainment Inc.
>Oooh, they are all getting together. Books Nippan, nani? And what is
>"The Right Stuf"?
Books Nippan= US Renditions, who still have US properties, even after the
ME buyout of LA Hero. And the Right Stuf releases primarily older,
"nostalgic" anime but a recent exceptional release as been "Terra e"
>>J.A.I.L.E.D. is represented by an expert intellectual Property attorney
>>Jules Zalon, who with over 20 years of experience in the entertainment
>>industry, has successfully seized bootleg property and prosecuted
>>offenders throughout the country. Mr Zalon will work closely with the
>>organization in its quest to stop all future pirating of copyrighted
>>material, on VHS, laser disc, CD, CD-ROM, or any other format belonging
>>to these companies.
>Well, on the plus side they will go after bootleggers. HOWEVER, if Mr. Zalon
>considers fandubbing "bootlegging" - well, this means us.
From what I heard, JAILED will be ignoring the small fans and going after
the commercial pirates. What Lopa is doing is not representative of what
JAILED intends to do. However, I am maitaining a wait and see attitude
myself. And this does not negate individual companies sending out C&D
letters to fans like Viz has done.
Steve
---
Stephen Pearl (Starbuck)
Internet: star...@cybercom.com WWW: http://www.cybercom.com/~starbuck/
QUOTES: "What is Starbuck-ing?" -Adultress 19
"Works for me!" -Rick Hunter (The Cop, not the Robotech Defender)
Peter Evans
> This is the text of a news release dated May 22, 1995 that was given out
>in Dallas, Tx at the Video Software Dealers Association Convention:
Interesting bed-time reading.
>Japanese Animation Industry Unites to Form Anti-Piracy Organization
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>The Japanese Animation industry has formed an anti-piracy organization
>called J.A.I.L.E.D. (Japanese Animation Industry Legal Enforcement
>Division), in an effort to collectively protect the Intellectual property
>rights of its members. An official announcement will be delivered today
>by John O'Donnell, Managing Director of Central Park Media, at the Video
>Software Dealers Association (VSDA) convention in Dallas.
Was anyone there to record this announcement??
>Participating members of J.A.I.L.E.D. include AD Vision Inc, Animeigo Inc.
>, Central Park Media Corp., Manga Entertainment Inc., Books Nippan,
>Pioneer Entertainment (USA) LP, The Right Stuf, Viz Communications, and
>Voyager Entertainment Inc.
Hmm, the people who stand to lose from the fansubbers, bootlacers
and the likes. I wonder what motivated them to do this, and that
terrible acronym. ^_^;;
You zeebs are going to hate me. I'll be rooting on the side of
JAILED. This promises to be interesting.
On the one side, we have the people who stand to lose financially
from the illegal distribution of their materials by way of
fansubs/bootlegs and mad copiers.
On the other, the illegal distributors, who don't have a legal leg
to stand on. (Anyone mentioning "fair use" will be laughed at.)
I suppose the baddies have the weight of numbers on their side. It's
about all they have.
Peter
----*
Hmm, have to reset procmail to catch the flames from this one. ^_^;
--
Space Acapella(tm) - "In space, no one can hear you sing ..."
^_o | Gag ari! SF ari! Bijo ari! Onsen ari!
U \ Beh! | [half-male, half-email] "Ja'n ja'n pafu-pafu!"
Bob Hegerich
>: >"The Right Stuf"?
>
>: The Right Stuf is a brand new company that sells a multitude of
>: products...kinda like Books Nippan.
>
>
Phone: 800-338-6827
Web: http://www.infonet.net/showcase/taitei
Email: at...@centsys.com
Snail Mail:
The Right Stuf
PO Box 71309
Des Moines, IA 50325
I bought their God Mars, it struck me as average. Anyone seen something
called "Ai City"?
Bob H.
Robert J Woodhead
>I would like to hear whether they will be pursuing fansubbers and fandubbers
>or not. Woodhead-san?
I cannot speak for JAILED, that's not my place, but I rather doubt that it
would go after typical fansub/dubbers, especially those who restrict their
activities to stuff that hasn't been licensed in the USA and isn't likely
to be. It's probably not cost/PR effective.
However, this is just my opinion. I don't know what JAILED's final
position is going to be.
>+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Robert J Woodhead * AnimEigo, Inc * tre...@forEtune.co.jp (note spelling)
Please send basic AnimEigo questions to 7244...@compuserve.com. Arigato
Gordon Waters
> You zeebs are going to hate me. I'll be rooting on the side of
> JAILED. This promises to be interesting.
Me too. It's about time. As long as they realize their LEGAL LIMITATIONS and
abide by them...
> On the one side, we have the people who stand to lose financially
> from the illegal distribution of their materials by way of
> fansubs/bootlegs and mad copiers.
And the fans here, for the most part, have ALWAYS been critical of this
behavior, as in bootlegging or distribution of LICENCED products. But up to
now, what good has anti-bootlegger activity been? Not much. I speak from
experience of myself and close friends, BTW... Maybe this will change
with the coming organization...
> On the other, the illegal distributors, who don't have a legal leg
> to stand on. (Anyone mentioning "fair use" will be laughed at.)
> I suppose the baddies have the weight of numbers on their side. It's
> about all they have.
Well, in the case of un-licenced materials, the commercial companies
_here_ don't have a leg to stand on, either. You have to OWN rights to
sonething to pursue damages for it. Like I said before, it's a CIVIL law
matter, so charges MUST be brought by the LICENCEE...
As for fair use, there have been many cases involving the right for use
for review. Sure, the subbers that distribute to mass mailings of Tom,
Harry and Jane Doe out there- they have a problem. But, those who KEEP
THINGS TO A REASONABLE (ie, SMALL) SCALE- and, as with MOST titles here
in this local area, (that I am aware of, that are fan-subbed, etc.) can
prove that their work is done SPECIFICALLY to either 1) provide
understanding of an otherwise unavailable, non-understandable work for no
profit to the "teacher" 2) to SPECIFICALLY show up shortcomings of a
commercial version will likely NEVER be found for against in a court of law.
And remember- if both the sender and reciever AGREE on the
"teacher-student" relationship under inquiry (ie, courtroom), it wold be
PRETTY HARD to prove otherwise as long as no money has changed hands!
And again, this is assuming that there IS someone who is LEGALLY entitled
to prosecute, that is aware and willing to do so. No Japanese company to
date has stated any desire of such, to my knowledge, other than
Shokokugan (sp?). So, obviously, leave Shokokugan stuff alone ^_^;;...
IMHO, the very existance of establishments like Commiket and Comic Market
in Japan are proof pretty much positive that the Japanese aren't very
interested in this issue...
In short, either your company owns it or your company doesn't. Simple
enough, isn't it? ^_^;
Regards,
Gordon Waters
Robert J Woodhead <tre...@foretune.co.jp> wrote:
>In article <1995May26.1...@news.cs.indiana.edu> Steven Miale, smi...@cs.indiana.edu writes:
>>I would like to hear whether they will be pursuing fansubbers and fandubbers
>>or not. Woodhead-san?
>I cannot speak for JAILED, that's not my place, but I rather doubt that it
>would go after typical fansub/dubbers, especially those who restrict their
>activities to stuff that hasn't been licensed in the USA and isn't likely
>to be. It's probably not cost/PR effective.
Thank you. The voice of reason. ^_^;;
This was basically *my* argument all along. I'm all against bootlegging of
licenced properties... but attempting to prosecute "victimless crimes"
(thanks for whomever remembered that term!) doesn't make much sense, IMHO...
>However, this is just my opinion. I don't know what JAILED's final
>position is going to be.
Perhaps we can all get some answers from them personally, at A-kon next
weekend, ne?
Steve Pearl
>In article <1995May26.1...@news.cs.indiana.edu> "Steven Miale" <smi...@cs.indiana.edu> writes:
>>>Participating members of J.A.I.L.E.D. include AD Vision Inc, Animeigo Inc.
>>>, Central Park Media Corp., Manga Entertainment Inc., Books Nippan,
>>>Pioneer Entertainment (USA) LP, The Right Stuf, Viz Communications, and
>>>Voyager Entertainment Inc.
>Books Nippan used to sell tapes under the US Renditions label. The Right
>Stuff does Astroboy, Gigantor, and obscure but tasteful OVAs and movies.
>Noticeably absent is Streamline Pictures.
I was told that the reason Streamline wasn't amonth the others is because
of their relationship with Orion Pictures.
Len Lekx
> There is no justification now. There is plenty of translated anime now
> available. It is easy to get imported anime. All of today's arguments
> come down to the bottom line: there are some fans who are unwilling to
> pay for their anime, they want cheap, preferably free, entertainment.
Untrue. I'm willing to pay for the anime I watch. Problem is, most of the
stuff I like is not yet available subbed professionally. In this case, I turn to
fansubbers. When the commercial version comes out, I purchase that and erase my
fansubbed tape.
Plus, fansubs allow me to experience anime I wouldn't have dreamed of
purchasing otherwise. (I'm a space-opera junkie... who would've figured I'd
actually LIKE LupinIII? If I hadn't seen a fansub, I wouldn't have even
considered it... now, I've ordered AnimEigos' LD versions of Fuma Plot and
Babylon Gold. ^_-)
--
Len Lekx IRC Nick: Nammo | Television does not honour tradition.
InterNet: LFL...@Booster.Tor.HookUp.NET | Most times, it does not recognize it.
FidoNet: 1:250/74...@fidonet.org | Therefore, it can only destroy.
OH NO!
: In article <1995May26.1...@news.cs.indiana.edu> Steven Miale, smi...@cs.indiana.edu writes:
: >I would like to hear whether they will be pursuing fansubbers and fandubbers
: >or not. Woodhead-san?
: I cannot speak for JAILED, that's not my place, but I rather doubt that it
: would go after typical fansub/dubbers, especially those who restrict their
: activities to stuff that hasn't been licensed in the USA and isn't likely
: to be. It's probably not cost/PR effective.
: However, this is just my opinion. I don't know what JAILED's final
: position is going to be.
If there's money in it, THIER'S A LAWER TO TAKE IT!
It will start slowly. Taking out the bootlegers at the cons. Then
harrasment of the more popular fan subbing groups. Then to the less
know ones and Anime goups with tape libraries. Then any fan traders
and fan that they can justify thier exsistance with.
But what gets me the most is that we fans worked so hard to make this
popular. Spent large sums of our own money. Had our intellectual
property stolen! (ex. Some of our translations have been used on some
of the profession relieses with out paying for them or even giving credit)
And now the professionals that have moved in and taken advantage of our
work and dedication now ATTACKS US! Do I feel betrade? HELL YES!
Harrison33
worry >snip<
All well and true, Gordon, and no reasonable fan wants a.companies hurt by
bootleggers and b.Bootleggers to profit from the well meaning efforts of
fans.
BUT.
Say you're at a con, and decide to run a copy of Star Dipwads (a funny
fan-dub of Star Blazers, for those who don't know), and, oh, Barry Winston
of Voyager Ent. Inc. (or someone who thinks he's helping VEI) walks by,
sees it, is GREATLY offended by this thing, and sues your butt off, and
the con, and anyone else he can think of.
It could happen. Really. Many of these people involved with this 'Jailed'
thing are gray, colorless people, who'll have to go after ANYTHING in
order to protect what they see as their rights.
Not just video. T-shirts. Psudo-cels. Fan art. Fanfic. They HAVE to, or
it will be seen as a dilution of their rights and powers. There's a legal
phrase for this, but I can't remember it off hand.
Just watch, and you'll see.
Steve H.
Yamato guru
Who'll see YOU at Project:A-Kon THIS WEEK! YAY!!!!!!
Craig L Wigda
Harrison33 <harri...@aol.com> wrote:
>Gordon spoke of how this is all no biggie for fans, only bootlggers need
>worry >snip<
>
>All well and true, Gordon, and no reasonable fan wants a.companies hurt by
>bootleggers and b.Bootleggers to profit from the well meaning efforts of
>fans.
>
>BUT.
>
>
>It could happen. Really. Many of these people involved with this 'Jailed'
>thing are gray, colorless people, who'll have to go after ANYTHING in
>order to protect what they see as their rights.
>
>Not just video. T-shirts. Psudo-cels. Fan art. Fanfic. They HAVE to, or
>it will be seen as a dilution of their rights and powers. There's a legal
>phrase for this, but I can't remember it off hand.
>
>Just watch, and you'll see.
>
>Steve H.
>Yamato guru
>Who'll see YOU at Project:A-Kon THIS WEEK! YAY!!!!!!
Just for the record I have a wait and see on this. But I did have to agree
with Steve that some of the people that will staff or make up the staff of
JAIL as it grows may not be as well meaning as some others.
Example being 1993 at the San Diego Comic Con an artist was making some
Fan art cells of various Anime characters (Priss, Nadia, ...). We were
the next artist down (my friend was picking up a commisioned drawing)
when some guy walks up to the fan artist. Asks what else he has with
Nadia on it. The Artist shows him two other cells he has done. The guy
then puts down his briefcase (yes he had a brief case at a con looked
like a lawyer minus the tie and jacket) opens it up and pulls out some
legal looking papers. Hands the artist the papers lets him read about the
first page and then TAKES THE FAN ART and put it into his brief case. He
then gives the artist his buisness card and says he will be in touch. The
artist looked like some one had just kicked him in the stomach. About a
minute or two later the artist pulled all the recreations of any known
(at least to me) Anime or comic characters from his table. It turned out
the the buy (Mr. Brief case) was some lawyer for StreamLine that just happen
to be at the convention and was inforceing StreamLine's rights to Nadia.
Now the question I have is does StreamLine have the rights to all of
Nadia or just the TV/OVA series ? If they only have the TV rights then
the StreamLine lawyer over stepped his authority but is a fan artist going
to challenge this (not likely in my opinion). This is where JAIL will have
to be careful with who they step on. Bootleggers are easy and clear cut.
Fan subbers are also clear cut (but bad PR and may not be worth the effort
if they are gentalmen about what they still distribute). Fan artists are
also in violation of copy righted characters but should they chased down,
I think not. I also think clubs and other organizations that only hold
tapes and do not distribute would be safe (not worth the effort). But this
is just my opinion and as I said I'm taking a wait and see on this one.
CLW
==============================================================================
| |
| Doing my part to spread Anime, by raising my children to love Anime. |
| |
==============================================================================
| |
| Increase the Entropy in the Universe, Have Children. |
| |
==============================================================================
R. Bain
>Anyway, I tried calling the J.A.I.L.E.D. phone number a few times, so far
>it seems no one was there. Oh well....
they don't say anything but "Hello?". She was polite enough, and said
they're 'not out to get individual fans', and that they're trying to
'keep the quality of american-released anime high'. (I'm paraphrasing
here-my note-taking stinks.)
I suspect these folks are _not_ especially well funded as of yet...she
said they'd be making some sort of further announcement to R.A.A.
I had to call them 3 times today before someone finally answered...you'
you'd think a company with such hot legal talent could spring for an answering
machine. :-P
Arbane the Terrible (Investigative Reporter)
Enrique Conty
>
[Horror story of fan artist getting steamrolled by Streamline lawyer]
>
>Now the question I have is does StreamLine have the rights to all of
>Nadia or just the TV/OVA series?
All of it. TV series and the compilation movie. There's no more Nadia
than that, you see...
--
Enrique Conty
co...@cig.mot.com
Ryan Mathews
writes:
>Example being 1993 at the San Diego Comic Con an artist was making
>some Fan art cells of various Anime characters (Priss, Nadia, ...). We
>were the next artist down (my friend was picking up a commisioned
>drawing) when some guy walks up to the fan artist. Asks what else he
>has with Nadia on it. The Artist shows him two other cells he has
>done. The guy then puts down his briefcase (yes he had a brief case at
>a con looked like a lawyer minus the tie and jacket) opens it up and
>pulls out some legal looking papers. Hands the artist the papers lets
>him read about the first page and then TAKES THE FAN ART and put it
>into his brief case. He then gives the artist his buisness card and
>says he will be in touch. The artist looked like some one had just
>case) was some lawyer for StreamLine that just happen to be at the
>convention and was inforceing StreamLine's rights to Nadia.
What a BASTARD!!
I wasn't going to followup to this, but as I tried to read other
articles, this one continued to bother me.
Can they do that?? I mean, that's *theft*, isn't it? Or at the very
least, denial of due process.
There is a heluva difference between a pirated tape, which is a copy of
copyrighted material, and ORIGINAL FAN ART which depicts trademarked
characters. If the person wanted to enforce his trademark, there were
other ways to do it, such as the standard way of fighting bootleggers,
getting the convention to say "cease and desist or be booted out". I
doubt the lawyer had a legal leg to stand on. He just figured he could
intimidate some kid and he was right.
I can tell you this: if I had been that artist, there would be *no way*
that I would let someone stick art I'd worked on for days in a
briefcase and walk off with it. I would scream "thief", I would get in
his way, I would do everything necessary to get the hotel security
involved. By the time I was finished, everyone at the con would know
*exactly* what had happened. I would rather spend the night in a cell
than let some legal fascist steal my sweat and blood.
--
---------- Ryan Mathews
Email: math...@ix.netcom.com "I like you! You wanna be a
SnailMail: 786 High Street guinea pig for my experiments?"
Bedford OH, 44146 -- Washuu-chan
Mr. Fun
clw...@gdwest.gd.com (Craig L Wigda) wrote:
<interesting story about a fan artists getting busted snipped>
{Now the question I have is does StreamLine have the rights to all of
{Nadia or just the TV/OVA series ? If they only have the TV rights then
{the StreamLine lawyer over stepped his authority but is a fan artist going
{to challenge this (not likely in my opinion). This is where JAIL will have
{to be careful with who they step on. Bootleggers are easy and clear cut.
{Fan subbers are also clear cut (but bad PR and may not be worth the effort
{if they are gentalmen about what they still distribute). Fan artists are
{also in violation of copy righted characters but should they chased down,
{I think not. I also think clubs and other organizations that only hold
{tapes and do not distribute would be safe (not worth the effort). But this
{is just my opinion and as I said I'm taking a wait and see on this one.
If Streamline is licensed to market the image of Nadia in the US, say in print
or on merchandise, then they can sue anyone distributing any unauthorized
Nadia stuff. If the guy had a court order to cease the merchandise, then he
was within his rights. That may have been what he showed the fan artist.
Try selling Bart Simpson stuff, or Mickey Mouse stuff if you want to see how
closely some companies protect their characters. Disney has even ordered a
man to stop tatooing himself with their characters.
If anime becomes big in the US, there will be money for more lawyers.
John A. Kilpatrick
>Example being 1993 at the San Diego Comic Con an artist was making some
>Fan art cells of various Anime characters (Priss, Nadia, ...). We were
>the next artist down (my friend was picking up a commisioned drawing)
>when some guy walks up to the fan artist. Asks what else he has with
>Nadia on it. The Artist shows him two other cells he has done. The guy
>then puts down his briefcase (yes he had a brief case at a con looked
>like a lawyer minus the tie and jacket) opens it up and pulls out some
>legal looking papers. Hands the artist the papers lets him read about the
>first page and then TAKES THE FAN ART and put it into his brief case. He
>then gives the artist his buisness card and says he will be in touch. The
>artist looked like some one had just kicked him in the stomach. About a
>minute or two later the artist pulled all the recreations of any known
>(at least to me) Anime or comic characters from his table. It turned out
>the the buy (Mr. Brief case) was some lawyer for StreamLine that just happen
>to be at the convention and was inforceing StreamLine's rights to Nadia.
If this story is true, then what happened to the if you make it you own
the copyright rule? It was said during the fansub debate that if you
translate something then YOU own the translation.
If YOU make a piece of fan art, then it belongs to you. Untill the guy sold
it, he hadn't done anything wrong, and by taking the piece of art then the
lawyer stole it.
If he was in the right, then how can a con have an art show?
--
**************John Andrew Kilpatrick*jaki...@engr.ucdavis.edu*****************
* "Tsuki ni kawatte...oshiokiyo!" | I do not speak for ACS, UC Davis, or *
* Bishoujo Senshi Sailor Moon | anyone else. You have been warned. *
**********************http://www.engr.ucdavis.edu/~jakilpat********************
William Bardwell
Ryan Mathews <math...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <3qg4hl$k...@gdwest.gd.com> clw...@gdwest.gd.com (Craig L Wigda)
>writes:
>[...]
>>The Artist shows him two other cells he has
>>done. The guy then puts down his briefcase (yes he had a brief case at
>>a con looked like a lawyer minus the tie and jacket) opens it up and
>>pulls out some legal looking papers. Hands the artist the papers lets
>>him read about the first page and then TAKES THE FAN ART and put it
>>into his brief case. He then gives the artist his buisness card and
>>says he will be in touch. The artist looked like some one had just
>>case) was some lawyer for StreamLine that just happen to be at the
>>convention and was inforceing StreamLine's rights to Nadia.
>
>I wasn't going to followup to this, but as I tried to read other
>articles, this one continued to bother me.
>
>Can they do that?? I mean, that's *theft*, isn't it? Or at the very
>least, denial of due process.
They artist can obviously agree to it, but unless he/she was stupid they would
only agree to it in exchange for a promise not to pursue any legal
consiquences...and that means signed agreement...
They can't seize it unless they have a court order about this specific
person (or maybe this specific mercendice, but in this case, no difference)
It would probably easy for them to get such a court order...but I dunno
what they showed...and typically implementing this type of court order
requires the presence of a Federal marshal, or sometimes (at the judge's
discretion apparently a local law officer)
P.S. I am not a lawyer, this was not legal advice, I just talk to a lawyer
about this sorta thing alot, and so think I know what I am talking about...
--
William Bardwell
wbardwel+@[cs.]cmu.edu
Justin
>>Noticeably absent is Streamline Pictures.
>I was told that the reason Streamline wasn't amonth the others is because
>of their relationship with Orion Pictures.
huh? Stephen, would you care to explain a bit more about this?
Orion is not into bootlegging, or are they????
maybe Streamline is leaning on Orion's Legal Department?
------
* PSME * Meiko Akizuki * Gunbuster * Maison Ikkoku * Kiseiju * Oyuki(UY)*
* Macross Movie * Akazukin Cha Cha * Sailor Moon * Sailor Senshi * Nene *
* Plastic Little * Mamalade Boy * Char's Counter Attack * Chen Agi *Luna*
* Belldandy * Spirit of Wonder * Iria * OEDO 808 * Kyoko (MI) * Presence*
* Mihoshi's Cube * Holy Up * Ah! My goddess! * Nuku Nuku*Sol Bianca*Jiji*
Justin j...@panix.com
Enrique Conty
>
>If YOU make a piece of fan art, then it belongs to you. Untill the guy sold
>it, he hadn't done anything wrong, and by taking the piece of art then the
>lawyer stole it.
The artist had it for sale.
>If he was in the right, then how can a con have an art show?
By having anything *except* actual anime characters in it.
--
Enrique Conty
co...@cig.mot.com
Mr. Fun
jaki...@jalisco.engr.ucdavis.edu (John A. Kilpatrick) wrote:
{If this story is true, then what happened to the if you make it you own
{the copyright rule? It was said during the fansub debate that if you
{translate something then YOU own the translation.
You can make anything you want. If you try to sell something that violates
someone else's copyright, you are violating the law. The only real exception
is parody, and that's hard to nail down.
{
{If YOU make a piece of fan art, then it belongs to you. Untill the guy sold
{it, he hadn't done anything wrong, and by taking the piece of art then the
{lawyer stole it.
That's correct, just change "sold" to "tried to sell".
{
{If he was in the right, then how can a con have an art show?
Good question. If no one tries to sell their work, I think it would be
totally legal. If all of the art was clearly parody, then I think it could
even be sold. But trying to prove that a painting is a parody would be hard
with something like anime, where the subject itself is often a parody.
Chung-Ju Lee
> Nadia or just the TV/OVA series ? If they only have the TV rights then
> the StreamLine lawyer over stepped his authority but is a fan artist going
> to challenge this (not likely in my opinion). This is where JAIL will have
> to be careful with who they step on. Bootleggers are easy and clear cut.
> Fan subbers are also clear cut (but bad PR and may not be worth the effort
> if they are gentalmen about what they still distribute). Fan artists are
> also in violation of copy righted characters but should they chased down,
> I think not. I also think clubs and other organizations that only hold
> tapes and do not distribute would be safe (not worth the effort). But this
> is just my opinion and as I said I'm taking a wait and see on this one.
Also, just wonder, if anyone draw or painted(include cells) an anime character
is that violate copy right?? I thought it doesn't because it is just like
some artists redraw some famous paintings.... it is not the original and as
long as it is not labeled and selled as original it is OK. Am I right?
Can some one verify that?
If this is the case, as long as the t-shirt, cells and other anime related stuff
isn't copied(which I mean someone redo the artwork exactly), it will be all
right?
Please reply your comments to me(e-mail). this thread is too old and long,
I don't think I will check it again....
Enrique Conty
>
>Also, just wonder, if anyone draw or painted(include cells) an anime character
>is that violate copy right??
No. Only if you *sell* your copy.
>I thought it doesn't because it is just like some artists redraw
>some famous paintings....
Well, I don't think the Mona Lisa or the vault of the Sistine Chapel are
copyrighted... ^_^;;
--
Enrique Conty
co...@cig.mot.com
John A. Kilpatrick
>In article <3qgt2d$o...@mark.ucdavis.edu> jaki...@jalisco.engr.ucdavis.edu (John A. Kilpatrick) writes:
>>
>>If YOU make a piece of fan art, then it belongs to you. Untill the guy sold
>>it, he hadn't done anything wrong, and by taking the piece of art then the
>>lawyer stole it.
>The artist had it for sale.
Does that still give the lawyer the right to take it? I think it would be
still owned by the artist.
>>If he was in the right, then how can a con have an art show?
>By having anything *except* actual anime characters in it.
So at the AnimExpo art show, there will be no art in the art show with actual
anime characters in it? Some how that seems both funny and sad.
Gordon Waters
Harrison33 <harri...@aol.com> wrote:
>Gordon spoke of how this is all no biggie for fans, only bootlggers need
>worry >snip<
>BUT.
>Say you're at a con, and decide to run a copy of Star Dipwads (a funny
>fan-dub of Star Blazers, for those who don't know), and, oh, Barry Winston
>of Voyager Ent. Inc. (or someone who thinks he's helping VEI) walks by,
>sees it, is GREATLY offended by this thing, and sues your butt off, and
>the con, and anyone else he can think of.
Not likely. All it would take is one good statement- stating that the
feature in question is a non-commercial PARODY of the original. Send it
to Winston's lawyer. Should be end of problem, there and then.
Some of you out there worry needlessly about parody usage of anime. AS
far as the legal opinions I have gotten about this, as long as 1) no
profit is made and 2) only PARTS of the whole are used (not the whole
thing) that parody is EXPLICITLY covered under Chapter 17, Copyright
Code Fair Use.
Douglas Leo Eckhart
Craig L Wigda <clw...@gdwest.gd.com> wrote:
>Example being 1993 at the San Diego Comic Con an artist was making some
>Fan art cells of various Anime characters (Priss, Nadia, ...). We were
>the next artist down (my friend was picking up a commisioned drawing)
>when some guy walks up to the fan artist. Asks what else he has with
>then puts down his briefcase (yes he had a brief case at a con looked
>like a lawyer minus the tie and jacket) opens it up and pulls out some
>legal looking papers. Hands the artist the papers lets him read about the
>first page and then TAKES THE FAN ART and put it into his brief case. He
>then gives the artist his buisness card and says he will be in touch. The
>minute or two later the artist pulled all the recreations of any known
>the the buy (Mr. Brief case) was some lawyer for StreamLine that just happen
>to be at the convention and was inforceing StreamLine's rights to Nadia.
Many times the US companies do not own the character rights to the
characters in their animation. For instance (to the best of my knowlege)
AnimEigo cannot release a Kimagure Orange Road shirt with Madoka on it,
even though they have the rights to the KOR OVAs. It depends on the
particular agreement that an American company has with the japanese owners
of the anime.
..............................................................................
. D. Eckhart ."... the WWWA always functions in the interests .
. red...@raz.csc.ncsu.edu . of all mankind. It's guiding philosophy is the .
. dlec...@eos.ncsu.edu . 'enrichment of life.' ... " - Kei, Lovely Angel.
..............................................................................
"ba bi bu be buurin"
Enrique Conty
>co...@rtsg.mot.com (Enrique Conty) writes:
>
>>The artist had it for sale.
>
>Does that still give the lawyer the right to take it?
Maybe. Not sure.
>>>If he was in the right, then how can a con have an art show?
>>By having anything *except* actual anime characters in it.
>So at the AnimExpo art show, there will be no art in the art show with
>actual anime characters in it?
Dunno.
--
Enrique Conty
co...@cig.mot.com
Sonya Choi Lee
Eric T. Cheng <s56...@aix2.uottawa.ca> wrote:
>But aren't all lawyers bastards? ;)
No, they are not. They're as human as everybody else, which means that
they can be cool or they can be jerks.
>No, that lawyer can't do that unless he was a police officer... He practices
>law not enforces it. As an artist all art works that I create are owned
>by me, including the copyrights to them, until I sell my works (which the
>copyrights are passed to the new owner).
Wrong. You do not own the copyright to any artwork depicting copyrighted
characters. The copyright owners have the right to make any derivative
works. If you don't believe me, try drawing a Marvel character and
trying to sell it.
>Don't mix trademarks with copyrights. There's a big difference!
Yes there is a huge world of difference.
Sonya
Sonya Choi Lee
Sonya Choi Lee <beld...@uclink2.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>Wrong. You do not own the copyright to any artwork depicting copyrighted
>characters. The copyright owners have the right to make any derivative
>works.
Please insert "for resale." behind "works."
Sonya
Geoffrey Scott
: In article <3qfkha$r...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
: Harrison33 <harri...@aol.com> wrote:
: >Gordon spoke of how this is all no biggie for fans, only bootlggers need
: >worry >snip<
: >BUT.
: >Say you're at a con, and decide to run a copy of Star Dipwads (a funny
: >fan-dub of Star Blazers, for those who don't know), and, oh, Barry Winston
: >of Voyager Ent. Inc. (or someone who thinks he's helping VEI) walks by,
: >sees it, is GREATLY offended by this thing, and sues your butt off, and
: >the con, and anyone else he can think of.
: Not likely. All it would take is one good statement- stating that the
: feature in question is a non-commercial PARODY of the original. Send it
: to Winston's lawyer. Should be end of problem, there and then.
: Some of you out there worry needlessly about parody usage of anime. AS
: far as the legal opinions I have gotten about this, as long as 1) no
: profit is made and 2) only PARTS of the whole are used (not the whole
: thing) that parody is EXPLICITLY covered under Chapter 17, Copyright
: Code Fair Use.
The Supreme Court has ruled that parody, even when done for profit
and/or is offensive, is legal under the 1st Amendment. I believe the
individual case was when the Beach Boys sued a rap group for doing a
risque version of one of the Beach Boys' songs. But, a fan dub would be
a violation, simplely because of the amount of the original that's there
(IE the entire video track). But, it is true, as mentioned in a previous
post, that a company can go after anybody selling a non-parody using
that company's characters, whether it is fan-fic, art, T-shirts, or
whatever, and there is also a (incredibly stupid, IMHO) legal theory that
states NOT doing so in every case known to them weakens their ability to go
after more blatant offenders in the future. Of course selling a T-shirt
or fan art with an copyrighted anime character (even if it's not an original
cel, but a redrawning) is illegal. That's the equivalent of phony Gucci
handbags, Levi's jeans, or Power Rangers or Alladin T-shirts. But it
will be suicide for any company to go after these people, plus it would take
up a lot of time and money.
Geo
Eric T. Cheng
: Also, just wonder, if anyone draw or painted(include cells) an anime character
: is that violate copy right?? I thought it doesn't because it is just like
: some artists redraw some famous paintings.... it is not the original and as
: Can some one verify that?
copyright owners. An example of this are the freelance comic artists who
do artwork for the N.American comic companies. The original art (on the
layout boards) are theirs (to keep or to sell) while the characters they
depict are owned by the proper copyright owners (often the comic book
companies). The difference is that the pros are paid to draw the
characters while the fans do it out of love for the characters. :)
: If this is the case, as long as the t-shirt, cells and other anime related
: stuff isn't copied(which I mean someone redo the artwork exactly), it
: will be all right?
Well, no since the characters are still copyrighted by the owners. Some
companies are more anal than others (especial Disney :P). Some companies
are a bit more laxed towards non-profit orgs such as fan clubs. But when
people do it just for profit and not for the love of the characters/series
it becomes bootlegging (hiss! boo! evil! evil!).
--
Eric "hates lawyers" Cheng
UofO Anime Club's Founder and Former-President
s56...@aix2.uottawa.ca
Eric T. Cheng
: Well, I don't think the Mona Lisa or the vault of the Sistine Chapel are
: copyrighted... ^_^;;
Well once the artwork is created and finished the artist (be it visual or
a writer, etc.) have automatic copyright on the work -- there isn't a
need for the artist to go down to some register's office to copyright it.
All of my artwork I've down are copyrighted by me. This copyright will
be passed along to the person(s) who buys my works. Thus rich families
who lend works of art to museums and galleries can and occassionaly do
ban any form of reproduction device (ie.camera, pencil and paper, etc.)
to the exhibit of the family owned artworks.
So the Louvre owns the copyright to the Mona Lisa and the Vatican owns
the copyrights to all of Michelangelo's works of art. They have the say
whether the works can be reproduced or not (thus art books have to get
permission to get photos of the works).
--
Eric "BFA" Cheng
Mr. Fun
chu...@cloudburst.seas.ucla.edu (Chung-Ju Lee) wrote:
{Also, just wonder, if anyone draw or painted(include cells) an anime
character
{is that violate copy right?? I thought it doesn't because it is just like
{some artists redraw some famous paintings.... it is not the original and as
{long as it is not labeled and selled as original it is OK. Am I right?
{Can some one verify that?
If I sell my version of American Gothic or the Mona Lisa, I'm not violating
anyone's copyright because they aren't copyrighted works. If I sell my
version of Ronald McDonald or the Window's NT logo, I'm violating someone's
copyrighted material.
Eric T. Cheng
: If I sell my version of American Gothic or the Mona Lisa, I'm not violating
: version of Ronald McDonald or the Window's NT logo, I'm violating someone's
: copyrighted material.
Visual artworks have copyrights as literary works (ie.novels). As in
my previous post to Enrique's post, I noted that the artist (or the heirs
or new owners) of the artworks own the copyrights to the artwork in question.
When I create a new sculpture or do a drawing, I own the copyright to it.
There have been cases were the copyrights of an artist's work have been
challenged by another artist who did an artwork too close to it (thus
plagarism).
The musuems who own "American Gothic" and the "Mona Lisa" own the
copyrights to the works, but don't bother with art bootleggers 'cause
they are too small to be worth the legal costs. Thus the musuems do make
reproductions of their art in the forms of prints, often sold in their
stores.
Eric T. Cheng
: >The artist had it for sale.
: Does that still give the lawyer the right to take it? I think it would be
not a police officer, so it was not his job to enforce the law (he just
practices it). The fanartist owned the cels he did and actually does
have copyright over the artwork, although the characters he had used are
not his but owned (through licensing agreements) by Streamline. The
fanartist could actually countersued the lawyer for theft though! ;)
: So at the AnimExpo art show, there will be no art in the art show with actual
: anime characters in it? Some how that seems both funny and sad.
Well just as long as anal companies such as Streamline doesn't show up! ;)
--
Eric "hates lawyers" Cheng
Eric T. Cheng
<short story of more evils of lawyers at anime cons deleted>
: What a BASTARD!!
But aren't all lawyers bastards? ;)
: Can they do that?? I mean, that's *theft*, isn't it? Or at the very
: least, denial of due process.
No, that lawyer can't do that unless he was a police officer... He practices
law not enforces it. As an artist all art works that I create are owned
by me, including the copyrights to them, until I sell my works (which the
copyrights are passed to the new owner).
That fanartist at the con owned the copyrights to the cels that the
scum...er, lawyer stole; although the characters depicted are copyrighted
by Streamline still.
: There is a heluva difference between a pirated tape, which is a copy of
: copyrighted material, and ORIGINAL FAN ART which depicts trademarked
: characters. If the person wanted to enforce his trademark, there were
Don't mix trademarks with copyrights. There's a big difference!
: other ways to do it, such as the standard way of fighting bootleggers,
: getting the convention to say "cease and desist or be booted out". I
: doubt the lawyer had a legal leg to stand on. He just figured he could
: intimidate some kid and he was right.
But aren't all lawyers bullies? ;) Wish there are actully T-Rexes to eat
them up...(reference to Jurassic Park (yes I cheered at the moment in the
theatre :P)).
: I can tell you this: if I had been that artist, there would be *no way*
: that I would let someone stick art I'd worked on for days in a
: briefcase and walk off with it. I would scream "thief", I would get in
I would have told him to stick his briefcase up his @$$ where he keeps
his ten-foot pole... ;)
: his way, I would do everything necessary to get the hotel security
: involved. By the time I was finished, everyone at the con would know
: *exactly* what had happened. I would rather spend the night in a cell
: than let some legal fascist steal my sweat and blood.
I would have told him that that's not Nadia but some other anime
character since all anime characters look alike! ;) (Hopefully he's not
into anime...)
--
Eric "was told I look like Tenchi..." Cheng
Eric T. Cheng
dojinshi with all this hype of the anime secret police...:/ I mean, look
at Comic Market in Japan which has over 250,000 fans buying and selling
fanzines, fanart and fancomics! The Japanese manga publishers turn their
heads on this as a good source of PR -- besides you don't go after your
fans who are your bread and butter!
I want to do the BGC comic not only as a BGC fan (damn I'm still
hunting down that BGC B-Club Special! :P) but as an aspiring comic artist.
It'll give me a chance to practice the graphic narrative techniques and
to show (hopefully) to professional comic companies my skills and
abilities (thus a REAL job! :)).
As I mentioned in my previous posts on this project I do intend to sell
the books at cost of the printing costs -- which will be going up with
the rise of pulp and paper...:( I'm a BGC fan and not a MBA! :P
--
Eric "BFA" Cheng
Justin
>>
>>>The artist had it for sale.
>>
>>Does that still give the lawyer the right to take it?
>Maybe. Not sure.
NO! It's very clearly a case of tort. The "lawyer" will most likely
go to jail for it. (If a prosecutor decides to pursue the case, that is...)
If the lawyer had paid for the artwork, then he should have demanded
a receipt. (Alternatively, he could have videotaped the whole transaction.)
It sounds to me, the guy in question is not a lawyer at all.
Chae Ho An
Enrique Conty <co...@rtsg.mot.com> wrote:
>In article <3qi7e3$j...@mark.ucdavis.edu> jaki...@jalisco.engr.ucdavis.edu (John A. Kilpatrick) writes:
>>
>>>The artist had it for sale.
>>
>>Does that still give the lawyer the right to take it?
>
>Maybe. Not sure.
No. A lawyer is most certainly _not_ a lawman. A lawyer has no
law enforcement authority. That lawyer 'stole' the artwork, and in the
very least, he stole the materials the art was on.
I suppose the lawyer felt that he could do it because:
1) He as a lawyer knows what his and the artist's rights are.
He probably made a guess that the artist didn't know his rights. By
being officious and business-like, the lawyer was able to bluff over the
artist.
2) While I don't know what the artist was doing was illegal, if
it were, there could have been an implicit announcement that said 'if you
resist now, we'll ram the court paper up your butt so hard your teeth
will shred it'. The artist may feel, under such 'threat', that he should
let the lawyer go after the big bootleggers and protesting small-timers
and hopefully overlook his own meek self.
>>So at the AnimExpo art show, there will be no art in the art show with
>>actual anime characters in it?
>
>Dunno.
Sheesh that's sad answer, for everyone. And I haven't even made
it to one convention yet. But it bodes well for my future employment
picture so it's not all bad I suppose.
>--
>Enrique Conty
>co...@cig.mot.com
--C h a e
--
pala...@p.imap.itd.umich.edu, cha...@delphi.com
http://www.cris.com/~chaean
"I'm strangely attracted to Camille Paglia..."
"Is that wrong?"
Enrique Conty
>In article <3qj8kq$h...@csi0.csi.uottawa.ca>,
>Eric T. Cheng <s56...@aix2.uottawa.ca> wrote:
>
>
Yes, they are. It's part of their job.
You're either a ruthless bastard or a bad lawyer. There is no middle ground.
--
Enrique Conty
co...@cig.mot.com
Stainless Steel Rat
>>> But aren't all lawyers bastards? ;)
Enrique> Yes, they are. It's part of their job.
Enrique> You're either a ruthless bastard or a bad lawyer. There is no
Enrique> middle ground.
There's a difference between being a ruthless bastard and just being a
bastard. A ruthless bastard will win your case; a bastard will just rip
you off (and I can fill several pages with text as to how one lawyer,
who's currently under federal investigation, almost got away with my
late aunt's estate).
--
Rat <rat...@ccs.neu.edu> | Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core,
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | which, if exposed due to rupture, should
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! | not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.
Eric T. Cheng
: Wait, we don't know that the guy wasn't a police officer or a sherrif or
: something. The original poster just said he looked like a lawyer. He could
: have been anything.
Well if the 'lawyer' was a police officer he is supposed to state and
show that he's a law enforcement officer (ie. show his badge).
--
Eric "Mr.Happy" Cheng
Eric T. Cheng
<snip snip>
: a violation, simplely because of the amount of the original that's there
: post, that a company can go after anybody selling a non-parody using
: that company's characters, whether it is fan-fic, art, T-shirts, or
: whatever, and there is also a (incredibly stupid, IMHO) legal theory that
: states NOT doing so in every case known to them weakens their ability to go
: after more blatant offenders in the future. Of course selling a T-shirt
breathing their characters (they've tried sueing the creator of 'Bloom
County' for paradying that rat-thing of theirs).
: or fan art with an copyrighted anime character (even if it's not an original
: cel, but a redrawning) is illegal. That's the equivalent of phony Gucci
Well every time a fan of some series draws their favourite characters
it's technically illegal...but no company (except for Disney) would go
after their source of income. Marvel (not yet anyways) would go after
the hordes of lil' kids drawing the X-Men(tm & (C) 1995 Marvel Entertainment)
or Spider-Man (tm & (C) 1995 Marvel Entertainment).
: handbags, Levi's jeans, or Power Rangers or Alladin T-shirts. But it
: will be suicide for any company to go after these people, plus it would take
: up a lot of time and money.
The difference is that these are pirates and bootleggers of products out
to make a big profit. Fans on the other hand spend their own time and
money doing breaking the law for the sake of the love for the series they
enjoy... Technically, all those Trekkers at ST-Cons are breaking the law
when they dress up as their favourite characters/races... At least
Paramount isn't as anal as Disney! :P
--
Eric "hates anal companies" Cheng
Eric T. Cheng
: >But aren't all lawyers bastards? ;)
: No, they are not. They're as human as everybody else, which means that
it's good for you! ;)
However, the real jerks are all those greedy MBAs! ;) (Yes I'm asking
for it now! :P)
: Wrong. You do not own the copyright to any artwork depicting copyrighted
: characters. The copyright owners have the right to make any derivative
I think this is not entirely true. The artist still owns the artwork
he/she has created albeit the ownership of the characters used are owned
by someone else. The exception to this is when the artist is working
under contract for a company and all art/ideas produce are owned by the
company.
: works. If you don't believe me, try drawing a Marvel character and
: trying to sell it.
Tell this to Jack Kirby. Marvel screwed him majorly. Kirby-san created
most if not all of the Marvel universe (Stan Lee too, but Kirby was the
driving force). Marver treated him like crap, not only did the company
didn't recognize him as the creator of many of their trademarked and
copyrighted characters but they kept the original artwork (the comic
layout boards). To make things worse, to get HIS artwork back Kirby had
to agree that he had to waive acknowledgement that most of the Marvel
characters were his -- otherwise it would have costed Marvel A LOT of
money through royalties.
Also, when an artist works for a N.American comic company he/she is
working freelance, thus anything he/she creates is owned by the company.
However, the original artwork is still owned by the artist and this means
the artist can resell the original artwork (I've seen the original comic
layout boards sell on average for about $100 Cdn.(about how much the
artist gets paid to do a page)).
Take for example Adam Warren's Dirty Pair or Bubblegum Crisis comic
books that he has done. The characters that he depicts are not his but
the original Japanese companies (he and/or Studio Proteus had to pay a
fair sum to use the characters legally). However, the original copyright
companies has no claim over Mr.Warren's artwork for the comics, they're his.
On that note, anime/manga fans often do fanart or dojinshis (fanzines)
of their favourite series (like me who's still working on the BGC
dojinshi *plug plug*). The fans do it out of the love of their favourite
series and not for profit. They don't even challenge the ownership of
the copyright/tradmark owners, unlike bootleggers or pirates who claim
the copies are their own.
--
Eric "a fan not a pirate" Cheng
Chae Ho An
Mr. Fun <astr...@neosoft.com> wrote:
>
>Wait, we don't know that the guy wasn't a police officer or a sherrif or
>something. The original poster just said he looked like a lawyer. He could
>have been anything.
>
Police don't just flash badges in TV shows for the dramatic
effects, you know. If you're a law enforcement agent, you have to
identify yourserlf as such on official business. He could have
been uncharacteristically discreet, but I would think that's highly
unlikely.
Chae Ho An
Chung-Ju Lee <chu...@cloudburst.seas.ucla.edu> wrote:
>
>Also, just wonder, if anyone draw or painted(include cells) an anime character
>is that violate copy right?? I thought it doesn't because it is just like
>some artists redraw some famous paintings.... it is not the original and as
>long as it is not labeled and selled as original it is OK. Am I right?
>Can some one verify that?
>
>isn't copied(which I mean someone redo the artwork exactly), it will be all
>right?
>
>
Famous artworks a bit different, although I'm not sure about
the legal guidelines underneath it all. A reproduced Mona Lisa,
however faithful to the original and well done, will never be sold
for as much as the original.
Regarding the cell incident, I think it was the copyright infringment
of the anime character. Characters in anime (and cartoon) can be copyrighted
seperately. So Disney can protect the picture Alladin _and_ um, that pesky
parrot. (Iago I think?) I would assume that there is much less leeway
when copying or adapting from those works.
Craig L Wigda
> s56...@aix2.uottawa.ca (Eric T. Cheng) wrote:
>{John A. Kilpatrick (jaki...@jalisco.engr.ucdavis.edu) on 31 May 1995
>{: Does that still give the lawyer the right to take it? I think it would be
>{The lawyer had no right to take it. He stole it. Clear and simple. He's
>{not a police officer, so it was not his job to enforce the law (he just
>{practices it). The fanartist owned the cels he did and actually does
>{have copyright over the artwork, although the characters he had used are
>{not his but owned (through licensing agreements) by Streamline. The
>{fanartist could actually countersued the lawyer for theft though! ;)
>
>something. The original poster just said he looked like a lawyer. He could
>have been anything.
>
Hi <Original poster here again>
Yes the guy looked like a lawyer. But he could have been something else. In
addition I am not positive that he was with StreamLine. Only that the guy
(Mr. Brief Case) was later seen talking to StreamLine (by one of my friends)
and that the artist mumbled something about StreamLine. I'll check with
my two friends this weekend and see if their memorys match my own (hey when
you get older some things just don't work as well). Mr. Brief Case looked
like a lawyer, dress pants, dress shirt, etc ... Also Mr. Brief Case was
Japanese, for all I know I could have been standing next to the creator of
Nadia or the Japanese distributor of it. In addition the cells that were
drawn were less then flattering of Nadia. It was a very well done and almost
perfect cell but Nadia was topless in two of the three cells. This in it self
could have generated the response from Mr. Brief Case.
Sorry for leaving out some details. As for a fan artist owning the drawing of
the character he does. I believe that this is called a derrivative work
(sp). These means that it was created based on someone elses work. I'm not sure
what the rights are to a derrivative work item. An example being you make a
fan sub of KOR TV episode 1. Now you have created a derrivative work. The
effort, translated text, and finished product (fan sub tape) is a derrivative
work. You, the fan subber, have no rights to the pictures on the tape, the
music, or the japanese language (voice acting). So what is the fan tape ?
Good question, wish I knew the answer, any copyright lawyers reading this
news group ?
As an example the film by Disney Alladin had Robin Willims (sp) as the geene.
Disney used clips from the film in an unapproved by Robin promotion for
some product or other thing related to the Alladin movie. Robin sueded
Disney and collected damages for copy right infringment. I believe that
Robin has had his voice copy righted or something like that or his contract
states that the voice of the geene is his property but Disney can use it only
as part of the Alladin film.
So, fan artists, may or may not be in violation of copyright laws. I believe
that they are but the original artist may not wish to push the point, as they
may not wish to offend fans. An example being at the 1994 San Diego Comic con
Ruminko (sp) accepted a fan artist drawing from a fan very nicely and was
very polite about it (I think it was fan art of Mermaid Forest characters).
She smiled nicely and the interpretor (sp) said thank you, of course Ruminko
could have said something else (since I do not understand Japanese) but her
face displaied a very nice smile.
Again, I believe that the above artist that drew Nadia topless most likely
got hit because he had defaced the character. I had seen other fan art at
the convention and there were some that StreamLine had the rights to and
they were still for sale. So either Mr. Brief Case was related to Nadia
directly by way of Japan or the artist was hit for degrading Nadia.
CLW
==============================================================================
| |
| Doing my part to spread Anime, by raising my children to love Anime. |
| |
==============================================================================
| |
| Increase the Entropy in the Universe, Have Children. |
| |
==============================================================================
Robotech_Master
Eric T. Cheng <s56...@aix2.uottawa.ca> wrote:
>Enrique Conty (co...@rtsg.mot.com) on 31 May 1995 19:34:33 GMT wrote:
>: Well, I don't think the Mona Lisa or the vault of the Sistine Chapel are
>: copyrighted... ^_^;;
> So the Louvre owns the copyright to the Mona Lisa and the Vatican owns
>the copyrights to all of Michelangelo's works of art. They have the say
>whether the works can be reproduced or not (thus art books have to get
>permission to get photos of the works).
Uhm, no.
Copyrights tend to expire some period after the creator's death (usu. 25-75
years). I'd say that all those Old Masters are well within the public
domain by now...
--
Chris Meadows | Author, Team M.E.C.H.A., Crapshoot & Co.,
CHM...@NIC.SMSU.EDU | on the Superguy Listserv (bit.listserv.superguy)
ROBOTECH@ | Check out the Superguy WorldWideWeb homepage:
EYRIE.STANFORD.EDU | http://www.halcyon.com/superguy/superguy.html
Robotech_Master
>: If I sell my version of American Gothic or the Mona Lisa, I'm not violating
>: anyone's copyright because they aren't copyrighted works. If I sell my
>: version of Ronald McDonald or the Window's NT logo, I'm violating someone's
>: copyrighted material.
>Wrong. Wrong. Wrong!
And a few dozen "wrong"s to you, too.
> Visual artworks have copyrights as literary works (ie.novels). As in
That may be so, but copyrights tend to expire some period after the
creator's death, as I've said in MY previous post. Thus, those Old Masters
would be in the public domain by now.
>my previous post to Enrique's post, I noted that the artist (or the heirs
>or new owners) of the artworks own the copyrights to the artwork in question.
This is simply not so. However, even if copyrights have expired, the
estates do sometimes have a certain pull. For example, when Star Trek had
Data play Sherlock Holmes in the holodeck simulation (in the episode where
Moriarty took over the Enterprise), the Doyle estate threatened to sue, even
though legally their claim was questionable.
(Note: I'm no lawyer, but this is what I've heard from reliable sources.)
Gilles Poitras
The artist or some bystanders should have made a very large noise & got
security involved.
If nothing else making a scene can increase awareness of something wierd
going on.
Hell fan art is a tradition in anime fandom.
Are they going to go after Animerica for their fan art pages? Woulda been
fun to show these to the lawyer.
Roger P. Ang
In article <3qj7j5$h...@csi0.csi.UOttawa.CA>,
Eric T. Cheng <s56...@aix2.uottawa.ca> wrote:
>Wrong. Wrong. Wrong!
> Visual artworks have copyrights as literary works (ie.novels). As in
>my previous post to Enrique's post, I noted that the artist (or the heirs
>or new owners) of the artworks own the copyrights to the artwork in question.
>When I create a new sculpture or do a drawing, I own the copyright to it.
>There have been cases were the copyrights of an artist's work have been
>challenged by another artist who did an artwork too close to it (thus
>plagarism).
No no no. Artwork in various forms is specifically mentioned in
copyright law. Drawn artwork I would assume is classified as "graphic
work". They are covered by many of the same laws a literary work.
But remember, the work must bear a copyright mark to be copyrighted.
This must include the name of the author/artist, a date (the year is
sufficient), and the word "copyright" or the 'circle with a c' mark
(NOTE: (c) - 'paren-c-paren' is not valid!!).
But the criteria for judging copyright violation of an artwork is
different from literary work. When judging copyright violation of an
artwork, the criteria of the "look and feel" of the original work is
considered. (Yep, this is where the "look and feel" crap for the
user-interface court cases came from, and why I am familiar with it.)
To simiplify everything, fan-artists making drawings of copyrighted
characters are violating copyright. If someone says you aren't, they
are basically saying your drawing doesn't even resemble the
copyrighted character (so I would feel insulted).
Roger P. Ang (ra...@laputa.ics.uci.edu)
Irvine? Where's Irvine? Grad student at the
In the heart of the Orange Curtain. Dept. of Information & Computer Sci.
Oh no! The poor fool. Univ. of California, Irvine. USA
Steve Pearl
>No no no. Artwork in various forms is specifically mentioned in
>copyright law. Drawn artwork I would assume is classified as "graphic
>work". They are covered by many of the same laws a literary work.
>But remember, the work must bear a copyright mark to be copyrighted.
>This must include the name of the author/artist, a date (the year is
>sufficient), and the word "copyright" or the 'circle with a c' mark
>(NOTE: (c) - 'paren-c-paren' is not valid!!).
Is this necessary under the Berne Convention? I know that this used to
be the case for literary works but now, they are automatically
copyrighted and must be EXPLICITLY put into the public domain. Is the
criteria for artwork different?
Mr. Fun
Mr. Fun
{: If I sell my version of American Gothic or the Mona Lisa, I'm not violating
{: anyone's copyright because they aren't copyrighted works. If I sell my
{: version of Ronald McDonald or the Window's NT logo, I'm violating someone's
{: copyrighted material.
{ Visual artworks have copyrights as literary works (ie.novels). As in
{my previous post to Enrique's post, I noted that the artist (or the heirs
{or new owners) of the artworks own the copyrights to the artwork in question.
{When I create a new sculpture or do a drawing, I own the copyright to it.
{There have been cases were the copyrights of an artist's work have been
{challenged by another artist who did an artwork too close to it (thus
{plagarism).
{copyrights to the works, but don't bother with art bootleggers 'cause
{reproductions of their art in the forms of prints, often sold in their
{stores.
Hmmm. I don't think this is true of the Mona Lisa. I think the work has
passed into public domain because no one contested common usage of the image.
You have to make some sign of attempting to protect a copyright, I think.
I know its true of trademarks. The Tramp-O-Line company threatens people who
use their product name to categorize all rebound jumping devices (or whatever
the non-brand name of those things is.) They do it because they want to keep
their registered trademark. Xerox, on the other hand, now encourages people
to use the word Xerox as a verb, as in "go xerox this fan art so I can sell it
illegally!" They want their company name to enter into common usage. I think
its to mess with the other photocopier companies.
But I'll ask my girlfriend about the Mona Lisa. She knows some artists who
are kind of experts on it, since they've been ripping it off for 25 years.
aki...@cris.com
In article <3qkqkv$6...@csi0.csi.UOttawa.CA>, <s56...@aix2.uottawa.ca> writes:
> : Wrong. You do not own the copyright to any artwork depicting copyrighted
> : characters. The copyright owners have the right to make any derivative
> I think this is not entirely true. The artist still owns the artwork
> he/she has created albeit the ownership of the characters used are owned
> by someone else. The exception to this is when the artist is working
> under contract for a company and all art/ideas produce are owned by the
> company.
> working freelance, thus anything he/she creates is owned by the company.
> However, the original artwork is still owned by the artist and this means
> the artist can resell the original artwork
I like to clarify this point. I am an artist who has worked for a number of
different North American companies, and I can say that:
a: Working for a N. American company doesn't neccessarily mean you're
freelance. (There are staff artists at many, if not all of the larger
companies. There are also exclusive contracts, which are somewhere between
staff and freelance employment.)
b: Working freelance doesn't neccessarily mean you're working for hire. I've
done art for Disney Comics, MArvel Comics, DC COmics (Paradox Press), WaRp
Graphics, Claypool Comics, Topps Comics, Dreamhaven Books and Antarctic Press.
All of these were work-for-hire except Antarctic .
Claypool allows people working on its books to get future royalties for new
characters they create, although Claypool owns the characters. It's a
kinda-sorta work-for-hire. For instance, Paul Dini, Rich Howell and I created
'Elf-vira'. If Elf-vira is used again, we get a bit of money.
c:The original artwork is not always given back to the artist. IN the case of
Disney Comics and a Little Mermaid cover for Marvel Comics, I waived my right
to the return of the art. In the case of Disney Comics, I didn't get paid
nearly enough to do this, but I needed for right then. Also, just because
you're -supposed- to get art back, doesn't mean you will. There's a certain
manga publisher out there who still has color boards I did for them, three
years after agreeing to return them.
In all the other cases, my artwork was returned (some split with pencillers or
inkers), and I was allowed to sell it.
I'd also like to point out that just because a company returns art doesn't
always mean it can be sold. Why not, I have no idea. I just know this is so.
AN artist can DRAW whatever they want, and they own that piece of art. What
they are ALLOWED to do with it after that is determined by who/what they drew,
what they do with the art, and how rabid any copyright holders may be.
I personally, would not mind someone drawing my characters, as long as they
weren't making a career of it. One, this can lead to something called 'market
confusion', where a person who does not own a character becomes so strongly
associated with it that they damage the OWNER'S market for selling art. (This
DOES happen.) Two, I'd strenously object to mass-produced art of any sort that
depicted my characters, whether it was my art being used or a new piece. Every
piece that's sold damages my market for similar products.
Richard Llewellyn
s56...@aix2.uottawa.ca (Eric T. Cheng) writes:
>
>Robotech_Master (robo...@eyrie.stanford.edu) on 1 Jun 1995 23:15:40 GMT wrote:
>: That may be so, but copyrights tend to expire some period after the
>: creator's death, as I've said in MY previous post. Thus, those Old Masters
>: would be in the public domain by now.
>copyrights to the artwork. As I mentioned before, rich families who lend
>their artworks to galleries and museums sometimes state as part of the
>exhibition no reproduction mechanisms (such as cameras or pencils and
>paper) are allowed within the exhibition. They are practicing their
>copyrights.
Wrong. There is a definite time limit on the copyright. Currently in the
U.S. it is the lifetime of the author or artist plus 75 years. However,
in the case of an actual painting or manuscript there is the fact that
it is a physical object that is owned by someone. The owner of an artifact
can place limits on how it can be reproduced. I.e. the copyright on the
Mona Lisa has long since expired (actually probably never existed but
that is a separate question ^_- ) so its image can be reproduced by anyone
who wants to. But as a physical object the owner can prevent photographs
from being made of the painting.
Rest of post deleted.
>
>--
>Eric "1995 tm & (c)" ChengYours in anime,
Richard Llewellyn BLUE SEED * MOTHER, SAIGO
Science Library, University of Georgia NO SHOJO EVE * MIDNIGHT
Internet: rl...@uga.cc.uga.edu EYE GOKU * MAGIC KNIGHT
Telephone: (706) 542-6642 RAYEARTH * TONDE BOORIN *
FAX: (706) 542-7907 GREEN LEGEND RAN * ELLCIA *
Chae Ho An
Robotech_Master <robo...@eyrie.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>Copyrights tend to expire some period after the creator's death (usu. 25-75
>years). I'd say that all those Old Masters are well within the public
>domain by now...
Umm... How about those velvet likeness of Elvis we see in
truck stops? :)
>Chris Meadows | Author, Team M.E.C.H.A., Crapshoot & Co.,
--C h a e
Justin
>Wait, we don't know that the guy wasn't a police officer or a sherrif or
>something. The original poster just said he looked like a lawyer. He could
>have been anything.
Even if he was a police, or for that matter ANYONE, one cannot take
another person's property without a proper warrent. There are a few
things that can be taken by certain authority without any kind of
warrent such as bombs, certain firearms, or seeds, but in general
non-life threatening matters cannot be seized. Whether the subject
matter in question is obtained, or produced, illegally or not, is
irrelevant. That's why mafia dons can finance their defence using
the ill gotten money without worring about feds seizing his bank
account.
Eric T. Cheng
: No no no. Artwork in various forms is specifically mentioned in
: copyright law. Drawn artwork I would assume is classified as "graphic
: work". They are covered by many of the same laws a literary work.
: But remember, the work must bear a copyright mark to be copyrighted.
: This must include the name of the author/artist, a date (the year is
: sufficient), and the word "copyright" or the 'circle with a c' mark
: (NOTE: (c) - 'paren-c-paren' is not valid!!).
word on their artworks, I haven't nor should I have to. Any visual
artist (except when they're commissioned by someone else to make a work
for the commissionee) automatically owns the copyright to the work.
: To simiplify everything, fan-artists making drawings of copyrighted
: characters are violating copyright. If someone says you aren't, they
: are basically saying your drawing doesn't even resemble the
: copyrighted character (so I would feel insulted).
Obviously fanartists (like myself) violate copyrights when they use
someone else's characters. But copyrights is a civil matter and it's up
to the copyright owner to go after the violators or otherwise if it keeps
up the copyrighted property may become public domain.
--
Eric "private domain" Cheng
Stainless Steel Rat
[...]
Roger> But remember, the work must bear a copyright mark to be copyrighted.
Wrong. Any work is *automatically* copyrighted under International law
(Berne convention). This message is copyrighted by me, for example, yet
nowhere will you find any copyright markings.
--
Rat <rat...@ccs.neu.edu> | Warning: pregnant women, the elderly, and
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | children under 10 should avoid prolonged
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! | exposure to Happy Fun Ball.
Jean Carrieres
: Mr. Fun (astr...@neosoft.com) on Thu, 01 Jun 95 00:43:42 GMT wrote:
: : If I sell my version of American Gothic or the Mona Lisa, I'm not violating
: : anyone's copyright because they aren't copyrighted works. If I sell my
: : version of Ronald McDonald or the Window's NT logo, I'm violating someone's
: : copyrighted material.
: Wrong. Wrong. Wrong!
: Visual artworks have copyrights as literary works (ie.novels). As in
: my previous post to Enrique's post, I noted that the artist (or the heirs
: or new owners) of the artworks own the copyrights to the artwork in question.
: When I create a new sculpture or do a drawing, I own the copyright to it.
: There have been cases were the copyrights of an artist's work have been
: challenged by another artist who did an artwork too close to it (thus
: plagarism).
: The musuems who own "American Gothic" and the "Mona Lisa" own the
: copyrights to the works, but don't bother with art bootleggers 'cause
: they are too small to be worth the legal costs. Thus the musuems do make
: reproductions of their art in the forms of prints, often sold in their
: stores.
I'd appreciate if you could cite some specific article of law concerning
that. Last time I heard, there was some law that stated that after so
long (period unknown), creative works fell into public domain or
something. I COULD be wrong, but I'd like something more specific than
just a say-so.
Just being my curious self.
--
Jean Carrieres
+----------------------------------------------------------+
| Copy Editor * Card Fighter Developer * Licensing Manager |
| Ianus Publications // Dream Pod 9 |
+----------------------------------------------------------+
Eric T. Cheng
: That may be so, but copyrights tend to expire some period after the
: creator's death, as I've said in MY previous post. Thus, those Old Masters
: would be in the public domain by now.
However, the works have been sold, thus the 'new' owners possess the
copyrights to the artwork. As I mentioned before, rich families who lend
their artworks to galleries and museums sometimes state as part of the
exhibition no reproduction mechanisms (such as cameras or pencils and
paper) are allowed within the exhibition. They are practicing their
copyrights.
individual artist owns copyrights to his/her own artwork as much as a
corporate entity, such as Disney or Bandai. A corporation or a company
may survive for hundreds of years (ie. The Hudson's Bay Company is 350
years old). The copyrights of an individual artist does not cease to
exist just because the artist dies, it is passed on the the new owners,
be it the heirs to the estate or a museum or government. There's no
difference in regards to copyrights. Just check with any art history
book, and all of the photo reproductions of the artworks had to had
permission first to be reprinted (I should know since I was a Visual Arts
major :P).
: This is simply not so. However, even if copyrights have expired, the
: estates do sometimes have a certain pull. For example, when Star Trek had
: Data play Sherlock Holmes in the holodeck simulation (in the episode where
: Moriarty took over the Enterprise), the Doyle estate threatened to sue, even
: though legally their claim was questionable.
The difference is that Sherlock Holmes the character is a trademark of
the Doyle Estate and not a copyright. The Sherlock Holmes novels on the
otherhand are copyrights of the Doyle Estate. There's a difference here.
This is what Disney does so often. To protect their copyright and
trademarks they go after any claims against their properties. If people
keep on using it, like an earlier example of the Tramp-O-Line (which is
actually a trademark of the company and not a copyright).
: (Note: I'm no lawyer, but this is what I've heard from reliable sources.)
Well try to distinguish the difference between a trademark and a
copyright. There's a big difference.
--
Eric "1995 tm & (c)" Cheng
Ryan Mathews
see the predecessor to the article I'm following up to...
In <3qjski$n...@agate.berkeley.edu> beld...@uclink2.berkeley.edu (Sonya
Choi Lee) writes:
>Wrong. You do not own the copyright to any artwork depicting
>copyrighted characters. The copyright owners have the right to make
>any derivative works for resale.
First, you're confusing copyrights with trademarks. Second, you're
*dead wrong* if you believe that your ownership of a character's
trademark gives you the right to confiscate anything with that
character on it.
For example: if an artist draws a picture of Priss, AnimEigo is within
their rights to prevent you from selling it. However, they may not use
your picture on a T-shirt without compensating you. They own the
character, but you own the work.
--
---------- Ryan Mathews
Email: math...@ix.netcom.com "I like you! You wanna be a
SnailMail: 786 High Street guinea pig for my experiments?"
Bedford OH, 44146 -- Washuu-chan
Jeff Alexander
Mathews) writes:
>
>In <3qg4hl$k...@gdwest.gd.com> clw...@gdwest.gd.com (Craig L Wigda)
>writes:
>>
>>pulls out some legal looking papers. Hands the artist the papers lets
>>him read about the first page and then TAKES THE FAN ART and put it
>>into his brief case. He then gives the artist his buisness card and
>>says he will be in touch. The artist looked like some one had just
>>kicked him in the stomach. [...] It turned out the the guy (Mr. Brief
>>case) was some lawyer for StreamLine that just happen to be at the
>>convention and was inforceing StreamLine's rights to Nadia.
>
>Can they do that?? I mean, that's *theft*, isn't it? Or at the very
>least, denial of due process.
>
It depends on the situation. If the artist in question was selling
cels that are exact duplicates of original cels or other registered art
featuring previous works of the characters then the lawyer can get a
law enforcement officer to confiscate the material. A lawyer is not a
law enforcement officer and does not have the legal right to confiscate
any material unless enpowered by the court & even then they need to be
accompanied by a law enforcement offical to protect themselves from any
he said/she said counter suits.
If the artist were creating & selling original works using
established characters without the consent of the copyright owners,
then they can serve them with a cease and desist order. If the artist
has already been served and still tries to sell the art, then they can
have him arrested & have the work in question confiscated as evidence.
Now if the artist's work used the characters in a parody or a
political satire, then they don't have a leg to stand on. An example of
this is the recent suit filed by the US Govt against a NY silk
screener. He put Newt's face on the front of a pair of boxer shorts &
the Contract with America on the back. The govt copyrighted the
Contract w/America & claims that it is copyright infringement. The ACLU
has already said that they'll take the case on the grounds that it is
political satire.
Eric T. Cheng
: Copyrights tend to expire some period after the creator's death (usu. 25-75
: years). I'd say that all those Old Masters are well within the public
: domain by now...
the Vaticans and not his technically -- this is parallel to say Disney
hiring key animators and character designers, what these artist produce
are own by Disney corporation. The Church has the copyright on
Michelangelo's works in the Sistine Chapel since they own them.
You don't have to register to claim copyright. As soon as you create
something you own the copyright to it. Remember copyright is essentially
the law recognizing your right to control the reproduction of your work.
If you don't stop people from using your work without permission it will
eventually become public domain...this is what has happened to some of
the masterpieces...no reinforcement of the copyrights.
However today artists, galleries and museums DO have copyrights to the
works they possess. Why should a company/corporation, a legal but
nonliving entity, have more rights over copyrights than a legal but
living entity, an artist?
Also, look at some of the manga artists today, the copyrights on their
works are owned by them AND their publisher. Which means that the
ownership of the copyright will still exist beyond the artist's death and
until the company still exist and/or sells the rights.
--
Eric "anarchist at heart" Cheng
Mr. Fun
math...@ix.netcom.com (Ryan Mathews) wrote:
{Damn! Netcom is having problems with its newsfeed, it seems. I didn't
{see the predecessor to the article I'm following up to...
{
{In <3qjski$n...@agate.berkeley.edu> beld...@uclink2.berkeley.edu (Sonya
{Choi Lee) writes:
{>Wrong. You do not own the copyright to any artwork depicting
{>copyrighted characters. The copyright owners have the right to make
{>any derivative works for resale.
{
{First, you're confusing copyrights with trademarks. Second, you're
{*dead wrong* if you believe that your ownership of a character's
{trademark gives you the right to confiscate anything with that
{character on it.
{
{For example: if an artist draws a picture of Priss, AnimEigo is within
{their rights to prevent you from selling it. However, they may not use
{your picture on a T-shirt without compensating you. They own the
{character, but you own the work.
I question this based on some anecdotal evidence. Last year when the Rockets
won the championship, there were bootleg T shirt all over Houston. The
Rockets found some of these guys, confiscated their shirts, and sold them as
collector's items. It was all legal, apparently.
Or maybe they just changed all the laws because of Rocket fever, I dunno.
SFUJ...@delphi.com
Quoting astroboy from a message in rec.arts.anime
> {If YOU make a piece of fan art, then it belongs to you. Untill the
>guy sold {it, he hadn't done anything wrong, and by taking the piece
>of art then the {lawyer stole it.
> That's correct, just change "sold" to "tried to sell".
I'm not sure about this, based on some well-known Disney lawsuit actions
I've heard about. For instance, the day-care center that put Disney
characters on their walls, and Disney forced them to remove it because it
violated their copyright.
Now the day-care center was NOT selling their characters, but just
displaying them on the wall. Apparently, that still violates copyright
standards. Is this because a violation occurs when there is a PUBLIC
display of someone else's copyrighted characters? In that case, the above
fan art violated copyright laws because the guy displayed the characters
openly at a con.
Whether the lawyer was being an anal-retentive asshole is another question
entirely...
--Scott
Rainbow V 1.07 for Delphi - Registered
artstudent
>Ryan Mathews (math...@ix.netcom.com) on 31 May 1995 02:39:38 GMT wrote:
><short story of more evils of lawyers at anime cons deleted>
> That fanartist at the con owned the copyrights to the cels that the
>scum...er, lawyer stole; although the characters depicted are copyrighted
>by Streamline still.
not only that, but you may sell originals without releasing print
rights, and you still retain the copyrights unless you release them.
>: I can tell you this: if I had been that artist, there would be *no way*
>: that I would let someone stick art I'd worked on for days in a
>: briefcase and walk off with it. I would scream "thief", I would get in
>I would have told him to stick his briefcase up his @$$ where he keeps
>his ten-foot pole... ;)
what i'd have done is not only not printable, would have earned me a
cell for assault and battery.. :)
--
-Sjd...@xmission.com "Stagnation is Death, Evolve or Die"
Justin
>>No no no. Artwork in various forms is specifically mentioned in
>>copyright law. Drawn artwork I would assume is classified as "graphic
>>work". They are covered by many of the same laws a literary work.
>>But remember, the work must bear a copyright mark to be copyrighted.
>>This must include the name of the author/artist, a date (the year is
>>sufficient), and the word "copyright" or the 'circle with a c' mark
>>(NOTE: (c) - 'paren-c-paren' is not valid!!).
>Is this necessary under the Berne Convention?
Some facts about Berne Convention:
The "Berne Convention" is NOT a set of laws or anything like that.
It is a convention of representatives from countries around the world.
(An extremely boring convention not like anime conventions at all.)
There, countries sign treaties with other countries. Each treaty is
negotiated between two counties only. In other words, there is no
single document where even three countries are signees, never mind all
one-hundred-thirty-something countries which are the members of the
Convention. (Can you imagine the amount of paperwork this creats?)
The treaty, most of the time, says that THIS nation will respect the
copyrighted material of the the other nation as does HIS own according
to the laws of THIS nation. (Please excuse the pronouns.)
So, an anime show that is protected by Japanese copyright law, is also
protected in USA as well, but in USA, the laws of USA applies not Japanese.
>I know that this used to
>be the case for literary works but now, they are automatically
>copyrighted and must be EXPLICITLY put into the public domain. Is the
>criteria for artwork different?
well..... read following CAREFULLY:
The law provides protection to the creator of a work during his lifetime and
to his heirs for a period of 50 years after his death.
Copyright protection is NOT dependent upon registration of work by the creator.
Copyright protection is achieved by means of the notice of copyright which
MUST be present on all published copies. (What do they mean by "publish"?
Also, notice that, for all practice and purpose, at least the declaration
of copyright protection is necessary for any "protection" at all.But read on.)
(Ah, one more thing. The form of declaration of copyright protection is
differnt for differnt kinds of work. If it deviates from the prescribed
format, it's no good.)
Though the registration of a work is voluntary and not mandatory, the failure
to register it may deprive the owner of certain rights and remedies. It is a
PREREQUISITE to bringing a lawsuit for infringement.
The effective date of a copyright registration is the date when an acceptable
application has been filed in the US Copyright Office together with the
required fee and the necessary number of copies,usually two, of the work.
The owner of the copyright has the legal obligation to file, within specified
time, usually within three months of publication. Failure to file can result
in fines and penalties by the Copyright Office.
In other words, you better register it and declare properly, or else.
Sonya Choi Lee
Ryan Mathews <math...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>Wrong. You do not own the copyright to any artwork depicting
>>copyrighted characters. The copyright owners have the right to make
>>any derivative works for resale.
>
>First, you're confusing copyrights with trademarks. Second, you're
>*dead wrong* if you believe that your ownership of a character's
>trademark gives you the right to confiscate anything with that
>character on it.
Well, being a third year law student who has recently finished Law and
Tech, Copyright, and Intellectual Property, I'd have to say that my
original point is true. I can cite to cases where artists drew
copyrighted characters and were prohibited from selling them.
In addition, *you're* the one that is confused. Read what I wrote.
Where did I say anything about trademarks giving you the right to
confiscate anything? I said the right to sell derivative works. Lastly,
I'd have to say that most people's grasp of intellectual property (e.g.
the difference between copyright and trademarks) is minimal at least.
Please don't spread misinformation.
>For example: if an artist draws a picture of Priss, AnimEigo is within
>their rights to prevent you from selling it. However, they may not use
>your picture on a T-shirt without compensating you. They own the
>character, but you own the work.
True. But where did I disagree with this in my post? In fact, I pretty
much said this when I said that you can't sell a copyrighted character.
Sonya
Sonya Choi Lee
Eric T. Cheng <s56...@aix2.uottawa.ca> wrote:
> So the Louvre owns the copyright to the Mona Lisa and the Vatican owns
>the copyrights to all of Michelangelo's works of art. They have the say
>whether the works can be reproduced or not (thus art books have to get
>permission to get photos of the works).
Sorry to do this again Eric, but you're wrong again. I'm only doing this
since misinformation on the net has such a domino effect.
The Mona Lisa is not copyrighted whatsoever. It's in the public domain
now. Under U.S. law copyrights will extend for the life of an individual
author plus fifty years (assuming renewal). You could copy most classics
all you want (e.g. you can publish your own book of Shakespearan plays,
Mark Twain stories, etc.).
Sonya
Sonya Choi Lee
Mr. Fun <astr...@neosoft.com> wrote:
>If I sell my version of American Gothic or the Mona Lisa, I'm not violating
>anyone's copyright because they aren't copyrighted works. If I sell my
>version of Ronald McDonald or the Window's NT logo, I'm violating someone's
>copyrighted material.
No, you're violating their TRADEMARK, not their copyright.
Sonya
Sonya Choi Lee
Eric T. Cheng <s56...@aix2.uottawa.ca> wrote:
> The musuems who own "American Gothic" and the "Mona Lisa" own the
>copyrights to the works, but don't bother with art bootleggers 'cause
>they are too small to be worth the legal costs. Thus the musuems do make
>reproductions of their art in the forms of prints, often sold in their
>stores.
NO, nobody owns the "copyright" to American Gothic or the Mona Lisa.
Their in the public domain now, that's why museums don't go after anybody.
Sonya
Sonya Choi Lee
Mr. Fun <astr...@neosoft.com> wrote:
> You have to make some sign of attempting to protect a copyright, I think.
Well, if you don't sue somebody for violating your copyright, then what's
the point of having one?
>I know its true of trademarks. The Tramp-O-Line company threatens people who
>use their product name to categorize all rebound jumping devices (or whatever
>the non-brand name of those things is.) They do it because they want to keep
>their registered trademark. Xerox, on the other hand, now encourages people
>to use the word Xerox as a verb, as in "go xerox this fan art so I can sell it
>illegally!" They want their company name to enter into common usage. I think
>its to mess with the other photocopier companies.
Well, this paragraph is full of misconceptions and factual errors. For
example, Xerox is not encouraging people to use their name, so much
as Xerox's trademark has died of genericide (as have escalator,
aspirin and cellophane). Man, if only I got paid to dish out the legal
advice/info.
Sonya
Sonya Choi Lee
Steve Pearl <star...@raven.cybercom.com> wrote:
>>No no no. Artwork in various forms is specifically mentioned in
>>copyright law. Drawn artwork I would assume is classified as "graphic
>>work". They are covered by many of the same laws a literary work.
>>But remember, the work must bear a copyright mark to be copyrighted.
>>This must include the name of the author/artist, a date (the year is
>>sufficient), and the word "copyright" or the 'circle with a c' mark
>>(NOTE: (c) - 'paren-c-paren' is not valid!!).
>
>Is this necessary under the Berne Convention? I know that this used to
>be the case for literary works but now, they are automatically
>copyrighted and must be EXPLICITLY put into the public domain. Is the
>criteria for artwork different?
No, it is not necessary under the Berne Convention. Simply put: In 1989,
the U.S. complied with Berne, so it abandoned the mandatory notice
requirement. Under the 1976 Act, a copyright owner is not required to
register her work. However, there are certain incentives to register.
Sonya
Sonya Choi Lee
Eric T. Cheng <s56...@aix2.uottawa.ca> wrote:
>: Copyrights tend to expire some period after the creator's death (usu. 25-75
>: years). I'd say that all those Old Masters are well within the public
>: domain by now...
>However, Michelangelo was commissioned by the Vatican, thus the works are
>the Vaticans and not his technically -- this is parallel to say Disney
>hiring key animators and character designers, what these artist produce
>are own by Disney corporation. The Church has the copyright on
>Michelangelo's works in the Sistine Chapel since they own them.
Wrong. Without getting too technical, the modern rule is: If the work is
created for hire, even if it is done entirely by a single individual,
copyright extends for the shorter of 75 years after the work is published
or 100 years after the work is created.
Sonya
Mr. Fun
{In <3qjipt$7...@uuneo.neosoft.com> astr...@neosoft.com (Mr. Fun) writes:
{
{>Wait, we don't know that the guy wasn't a police officer or a sherrif or
{>something. The original poster just said he looked like a lawyer. He could
{>have been anything.
{
{Even if he was a police, or for that matter ANYONE, one cannot take
{another person's property without a proper warrent. There are a few
{things that can be taken by certain authority without any kind of
{warrent such as bombs, certain firearms, or seeds, but in general
{non-life threatening matters cannot be seized. Whether the subject
{matter in question is obtained, or produced, illegally or not, is
{irrelevant. That's why mafia dons can finance their defence using
{the ill gotten money without worring about feds seizing his bank
{account.
The original poster said "Lawyer Man" showed "Artist Man" some papers before
taking the "Art". That could have been the warrant.
C Sue Shambaugh
You know, I predicted this kind of thing would happen, and now it has.
(Reference an article I wrote for Anime UK last month which should be
published shortly.)
It will be interesting to see if any brief-case types dare show up at
Comike and confiscate fanzines.
So, will all fan art in art shows now be unavailable for sale? Or completely
unavailable for viewing? Can you imagine convention art shows where the
only works are imported cels by the guest artists?
- Sue
Eric T. Cheng
: I'd appreciate if you could cite some specific article of law concerning
: long (period unknown), creative works fell into public domain or
: something. I COULD be wrong, but I'd like something more specific than
: just a say-so.
over copyright of artwork. Sorry I was a bit into it, being an artist, I
guess I had "thought" (albeit wrongly) about the length of the copyright
of artwork. I stand corrected after the posting of the Copyright FAW and
a post from a Net friend and a fellow art student.
*bows until my back hurts*
HOWEVER, I'm still upset that there IS a set time limit for individual
artist's ownership of his/her copyrights on artwork created while there
seems to be a different rule for companies who hire/commission artwork.
I've address this before but noone seems to have answered. When I create
artwork the copyright expires many years after my death (between 50-75
years I've been told). However, I do not believe the same goes for a
company which own copyrights on artwork it creates (throught its
employees) since a company does really "die" (can go under or be bought)
and could "live" for hundreds of years (ie. Hudson's Bay Company is 350
years old). This is an unfair advantage over artists.
: Just being my curious self.
ooh! A Protoculture Addict staff on r.a.a.! :)
--
Eric "whipped with a wet ramen" Cheng
Chae Ho An
>{For example: if an artist draws a picture of Priss, AnimEigo is within
>{their rights to prevent you from selling it. However, they may not use
>{your picture on a T-shirt without compensating you. They own the
>{character, but you own the work.
>
>I question this based on some anecdotal evidence. Last year when the Rockets
>won the championship, there were bootleg T shirt all over Houston. The
>Rockets found some of these guys, confiscated their shirts, and sold them as
>collector's items. It was all legal, apparently.
>
It's possible they were awarded the bootleg merchandise as
compensation by the court, or by a settlement with the bootleggers.
If infrigement trial went through the full court press, err.. I mean,
full court process, I would suspect the former. If the sale was
right after the seizure, it could have been the latter.
But as far as I know, you can't just simply seize other
people's products and sell them even if they violated your
copyright. Due process, for one thing, would stand in their way
and it's a biggie.
Ryan Mathews
>In article <3qlqae$8...@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
>{For example: if an artist draws a picture of Priss, AnimEigo is
>{within their rights to prevent you from selling it. However, they
>{may not use your picture on a T-shirt without compensating you. They
>{own the character, but you own the work.
>
>I question this based on some anecdotal evidence. Last year when the
>Rockets won the championship, there were bootleg T shirt all over
>Houston. The Rockets found some of these guys, confiscated their
>shirts, and sold them as collector's items. It was all legal,
>apparently.
I have a feeling there's more to the story than that. How original
were these shirts? Were they caught selling them by a law enforcement
officer after having been given a cease-and-desist order?
Ryan Mathews
Ang) writes
>But remember, the work must bear a copyright mark to be copyrighted.
I thought copyrights were implicit as long as you have concrete proof
of when the work was created, say, a publication.
>To simiplify everything, fan-artists making drawings of copyrighted
>characters are violating copyright.
Just to get ultra-nitpicky: I don't think fan-artists are violating
copyright unless they reproduce a copyrighted drawing. Otherwise, they
are violating trademark. For example, the distinctive costume of
Spider-Man is a trademark of Marvel Comics, but a specific drawing is
copyrighted.
Neil Sinclair
O.K....
I realize that I have followed up a really huge post but blame my
editor not me...
Anyway...fanfics....
If any of you have been over in alt.games.strategic at any time in
the last eight months you may recall the following (of coures for you
the total recap is unnessisary if you know what I'm talking about but
be patient for the viewing audience.....and let me do the somewhat
abreviated flashback............)
A poster in the group liked the game X-com so mucg that he decided to
write ficional accounts of his troopers. He followed one of these from
his beginnings as a Rookie to later missions and more experience as
well as a little romantic involvement. It was the write up of a
person's story with the game world as a background.
Microprose (MP$....sort of like T$R) came in threatening that he stop
posting these or there would be....trouble (to quote robocop) The
author stopped but there was much hue and cry raised by those in the
group...
Microprose sensing that maybe somebody saying good things about one
of their most populair games last year would make more people
interested in buying the game and not just reading the stories (they
were right about this and pumped out a shoddy bug filled next episode
that had been made buggier than the original...I know I've got it)
anyway thet then contacted the author again and said he was free to
post his stories ....after they had a chance to aprove of them of
course.
I found the whole thing quite distasteful. The author was writing
because he enjoyed to write...he wanted to express both his creativity
and his apreciation for the game he had played...no money...just doing
it because he wanted to....maybe he wanted praise...I think all of us
do when we do something which is enjoyable (ones' altuistic nature
still likes a little stroking) But I found that the whole shoddy afair
a missuse of copywrite.....
If anybody want's to sue me....or threaten to sue me
for such a use I would be.....well pissed off.
if I had to talk to someones legal representive every time I said
or typed "beam me up Scotty."
or If I mentioed something that T$R had delusions of holding
copywrite on (Dragon Knight vrs. Knights of Xentar) Grrrrrr.
It makes me want to spit. If I give somebody acknowlegement in
something I write....say a short story where several little creatures
with hairy feet sit in a darkened bar...one nevously twisting a gold
ring on a chain ....while the REAL action takes place in
forgrownd....I am paying homage to that world or works....
Well I'd better stop now before I go completely off my head
Neil
Eric T. Cheng (s56...@aix2.uottawa.ca) wrote:
: Sonya Choi Lee (beld...@uclink2.berkeley.edu) on 4 Jun 1995 05:00:26 GMT wrote:
: : One of the rights of copyright holders is the right to make copies. They
: : also have the right to make all derivative works (e.g. fanfics,
: : translations, etc.). Your fanfic would still be a violation of their
: : copyright even if you lost money doing it. I think it will be useful to
: : think of it in the copyright holder's view.
: Agreed. I've no intention of challenging Artmic's/Youmex's ownership of
: the BGC trademarks and copyrights.
: : Let's say you are the copyright holder to Bubblegum Crisis. You've spent
: : a great deal of time creating characters, settings, etc. to your story.
: : You've obviously invested a lot of time and money to promoting your books,
: : videos, etc. It catches on so greatly that many fans come out with
: : fanfics. In fact, many of these fanfics are superior to those that you
: Then why would anyone be a fan of your series if amateur fans can produce
: material better than the pros? If this is true, the company deserves to
: lose their trademarks! ;) (Just joking!) But the majority of fanart is
: just fanart (meaning: amateur).
: However, it's good PR to let the fans to do fanart and fanfics...you don't
: kill the bread and butter that feeds you (unless of course you're Disney!
: ;)). Fanart litter anime-manga magazines(from Newtype to Animerica),
: clear violations of trademarks, but this is just good PR. Look at all the
: fanart of Ranma, Bellandy, and Alita/Gally...Viz and Dark Horse knows that
: they have popular series and thus more money!
: : can create. Therefore, there is no longer a market for your comics, since
: : fanfics are better, and fans are even willing to lose money in selling
: However, in Japan there is a precedence for fanfics and dojinshis (fanzines)
: as in the form of the Comic Market that attracts over 250,000 people each
: year. This con solely deals with fanfics and fanzines. The big manga
: publishers turn a blind eye the majority of the time (except for
: bootleggers and pirates who are out to make a buck and not as fans). The
: publishers apparently see this as good PR (except maybe when the images
: of their properties are tarnished, ie. hentai versions).
: The reasons I've asked about my BGC dojinshi is that N.American comic
: companies are not so tolerant of fanzines of copyrighted and trademarked
: characters. There are not cons which deal with fanmade comics of their
: favourite superheroes (Marvel and Disney will be down your throat before
: you can "argh!" ;)). I've yet to hear anything from Mr.Woodhead about
: this matter since his company, AnimEigo owns the N.American rights to the
: BGC line (since I've posted my plans on this project many times on r.a.a,
: r.a.m and a.f.bgc for the past several months now).
: Right now the BGC dojinshi project is not 100% guarenteed that it'll be
: published, with the iffy-trademark/copyright violations, skyrocketing
: paper prices and a low print run. I'll probably only print 100 copies
: from the looks of the reservations of the books (about 55 so far) and
: such a low number of books will cost me a bundle (printing more books is
: cheaper per unit of course...).
: : them. You're screwed. Is this fair to you? What if it was a competing
: : company that was making the fanfics at a loss to force you into
: Well then you can take them to civil court and sue them for challenging
: your trademarks (a la Disney).
: : bankruptcy? Now do you see the need for such copyright laws?
: I do. I do understand the concept behind copyrights, especially when
: they do affect me directly as an artist (both for comics and "fine
: art"). I've tried in previous posts, albeit with false facts :P, trying
: to protect artists' copyright ownership. Oh well, I won't be around when
: my artworks' copyrights expire anyways :P.
: --
: Eric "will be rich when I'm dead" Cheng
David Bennett
Robert J Woodhead <tre...@foretune.co.jp> wrote:
> I cannot speak for JAILED, that's not my place, but I rather doubt that it
> would go after typical fansub/dubbers, especially those who restrict their
> activities to stuff that hasn't been licensed in the USA and isn't likely
> to be. It's probably not cost/PR effective.
I think you are correct... If you look at the wording of the announcement
that was posted it seems to be focused on works that have been liscensed.
Most of the fansubbers that do their polling through the Internet abide
by the rule of "If it's liscensed, don't distribute it." Hopefuly JAILED
will be taking out those bastards at conventions that sell these subtitles
for $20 a pop.
dave (the guy who attended the premiere of the ICE AGE expansion set
for magic. In this tournament on June 2nd he met Kato (Yes, Kato/OJ),
Adam West and Richard Garfield.)
**************************[ David Bennett ] ****
*Maison Ikkoku - Kyoko! [ aka : Sunlord ] ******
*Video Girl AI - Amano-ai [ mud : sunlord ] ******
**************************[ sun...@io.org ] ****
kr...@psyber.com
>
> Does that still give the lawyer the right to take it? I think it would be
> still owned by the artist.
The lawyer pulled a fast one here.. the only people capable of "impounding evidence" (which is
just what this attorney did) are the police.. But, the lawyer had "legal" papers that more than
intimedated the poor artist.. If the artist was willing to raise a stink, and take the risk, he could
have called con security and had them bring in the local police.. He would have still lost his
artwork, but it would have tweaked the lawyer to have to stand around and wait in a room of
angry fans ;-)
==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==# Geek Code 2.1:GB/TW/FA d--
Steve Gerencser * Managing Editor VrE Online # H+ s+:++ g+ p? au* a- w++
Available on Southern Cross bbs 916.645.0103 # v C++(++++) UL P? L 3+ E--
http://www.rt66.com/coach/vre/vrehome.html # N++ K- W+>$ M-- V po+ Y+>++
ftp from rt66.com/pub/VRE_I#.ZIP * * * # t+ 5+++ j R G'''' tv++ b++
kr...@psyber.com - 916.645.0433v # D+ B--- e++(*) u** h---- f
==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==# r+++ n---(----) y+ y++++**
--== How many programmers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? ==--
--== None! That's a hardware problem! ==--
Eric T. Cheng
: NO, nobody owns the "copyright" to American Gothic or the Mona Lisa.
with help from a Net friend and a fellow art student, I realized the
error of my posts. I was too caught of defending the rights of the
artists, being one myself...I hate the idea of people using my art for
profit. I knew about the 50-75 years post-mortum law... *sigh*
Gomen. *bows many more times*
--
Eric "knows when I'm wrong...now" Cheng