Twilight of Superheroes and more now on the web!!!
dcse...@my-dejanews.com
See Twilight of Superheroes and Gerard Jones' Emerald Twilight at
http://www.geocities.com/Pipeline/Halfpipe/1851/main.html
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Michael Kopenec
I'd take that down man, DC will kill ya for this.
BigBadOmar
Jones' ET Outline was one of the most underwhelming pieces of shit I've ever
had the misfortune of reading.
Mogen Dave
{Jones' ET Outline was one of the most underwhelming pieces of shit I've ever
had the misfortune of reading.}
Who cares?
Michael Kopenec
I liked it, maybe not the protector thing tho
Pariah
BigBadOmar wrote:
> Jones' ET Outline was one of the most underwhelming pieces of shit I've ever
> had the misfortune of reading.
I think that the largest appealing factor of it around here is that it wasn't
the ET that they got.
I suspect, perhaps-correctly-perhaps-not-we'll-never-know, that if it had been
done, it would probably have been written off as a gimmick and complained about,
though not nearly to the degree the running ET got.
Pariah
--
Live in Texas? Vote Bush/Sharp `98!
http://members.xoom.com/pariahsight/busharp.html
eternally
dcse...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> See Twilight of Superheroes and Gerard Jones' Emerald Twilight at
> http://www.geocities.com/Pipeline/Halfpipe/1851/main.html
wow, that rocked!
nice to see someone has some balls.
i hate all the corporate fear-mongering that goes on on the web.
keep up us to date as to whether DC decides to actually persue any
action, and whether they have a case...
- e.
p.s.: ya gotta love that Jones version of ET - if only because it's a
good solid story that makes sense and doesn't have any of the flaws of
the one they actually went with.
Captain Atom
eternally wrote:
> wow, that rocked!
> nice to see someone has some balls.
Because God knows you don't.
--CAPTAIN ATOM
dcse...@my-dejanews.com
Glad to see you like the page, DC will never find out who I am because I used
a different name on signing up for Geocities, Hotmail, and Dejanews. Plus I
never put in my real address. I'd like to see them try and do anything to my
ass.
In article <6n666e$psi$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
dcse...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> See Twilight of Superheroes and Gerard Jones' Emerald Twilight at
> http://www.geocities.com/Pipeline/Halfpipe/1851/main.html
>
Michael Kopenec
Prepare to hear from Joe Kogan
BigBadOmar
{Glad to see you like the page, DC will never find out who I am because I used
a different name on signing up for Geocities, Hotmail, and Dejanews. Plus I
never put in my real address. I'd like to see them try and do anything to my
ass.}
Why, is there room with the three dicks already up there?
cove...@my-dejanews.com
In article <6n9edc$nro$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
dcse...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> Glad to see you like the page, DC will never find out who I am because I used
> a different name on signing up for Geocities, Hotmail, and Dejanews. Plus I
> never put in my real address. I'd like to see them try and do anything to my
> ass.
At this point, does DC really care though? GLCorps.org has had the Gerard
Jones GL story up for months and various sites have had the Twilight proposal
up for a couple of years. The stories are already out. Pretty silly closing
that barn door after the horse has left.
GSG
eternally
*YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWNNNNNNN*...
- e.
eternally
cove...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> In article <6n9edc$nro$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> dcse...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > Glad to see you like the page, DC will never find out who I am because I used
> > a different name on signing up for Geocities, Hotmail, and Dejanews. Plus I
> > never put in my real address. I'd like to see them try and do anything to my
> > ass.
>
> At this point, does DC really care though? GLCorps.org has had the Gerard
> Jones GL story up for months and various sites have had the Twilight proposal
> up for a couple of years. The stories are already out. Pretty silly closing
> that barn door after the horse has left.
>
> GSG
yes, but "saving face" has no statute of limitations. (which we can see
in action on this very board...)
- e.
Keith Trotter
cove...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> At this point, does DC really care though? GLCorps.org has had the Gerard
> Jones GL story up for months and various sites have had the Twilight proposal
> up for a couple of years. The stories are already out. Pretty silly closing
> that barn door after the horse has left.
Unless, like me, you haven't had had the chance to read either proposal
in it's entirity. I'm very grateful for this chance to at least read
what _may_ have happened to certain stories and characters.
Keith
¬¬¬¬¬
(England 3 Argentina 2 - on Earth-2 anyway)
BigBadOmar
{yes, but "saving face" has no statute of limitations. (which we can see
in action on this very board...)}
Saving face from what, nimrod?
cove...@my-dejanews.com
In article <35996E...@cableinet.co.uk>,
You missed my point. The guy was more or less saying "screw DC if they don't
like it" and I asked if DC even cares anymore.
GSG
> ŹŹŹŹŹ
> (England 3 Argentina 2 - on Earth-2 anyway)
>
Aaron Mojo
I thought "Twilight" was stupid and didn't much care either way for the
Emerald one.
-Aaron!
(Why would Captain Marvel EVER marry his sister? Sheesh.)
Tal...@my-dejanews.com
In article <35986A...@idiot.net>,
spamneu...@idiot.net wrote:
>
> eternally wrote:
>
> > wow, that rocked!
> > nice to see someone has some balls.
>
> Because God knows you don't.
>
> --CAPTAIN ATOM
>
It would appear that Captain Atom has a cock up his ass.
Tal
cove...@my-dejanews.com
In article <199807011508...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
I agree that it wasn't that great but it did have some great bits. The "House
of..." idea. The deconstruction. John Constantine. I would love to see some
of that stuff actually applied in an Elseworlds.
Was Mary Billy's sister Pre-Crisis? If she was, that's what makes it even
better!
GSG
eternally
cove...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>
>
> Was Mary Billy's sister Pre-Crisis? If she was, that's what makes it even
> better!
>
> GSG
yeah, i kind of wondered about what you're referring to, also....
very sick! :D
- e.
dcse...@my-dejanews.com
> This isn't free speech. It's stealing a story that belongs to DC.
>
>-Aaron!
These stories don't belong to DC they just like to be jack asses. And guess
what? I'm a free speech site now ba-bay.
'Secrets
dcse...@my-dejanews.com
DC does care, if they didn't they wouldn't force every other site off. And I
could give a shit if they like it or not, I'm gonna get some free speech stuff
on there soon.
'Secrets
In article <6nddlr$1if$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
cove...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>
> You missed my point. The guy was more or less saying "screw DC if they don't
> like it" and I asked if DC even cares anymore.
>
> GSG
>
> > ŹŹŹŹŹ
> > (England 3 Argentina 2 - on Earth-2 anyway)
> >
>
Aaron Mojo
>And I
>could give a shit if they like it or not, I'm gonna get some free speech
>stuff
>on there soon.
This isn't free speech. It's stealing a story that belongs to DC.
-Aaron!
Pariah
dcse...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <199807011508...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> aaro...@aol.com (Aaron Mojo) wrote:
>
> > This isn't free speech. It's stealing a story that belongs to DC.
> >
> >-Aaron!
>
> These stories don't belong to DC they just like to be jack asses. And guess
> what? I'm a free speech site now ba-bay.
They belong to DC in that they paid the writers to write them. Whether they use
it or not is irrelevent.
Aaron Mojo
>> These stories don't belong to DC they just like to be jack asses. And
>guess
>> what? I'm a free speech site now ba-bay.
speech and stealing what DC paid for. Free speech gives you the right to
express yourself in whatever manner you see fit -- but if that right steps on
DC's right to their characters then THEY have the right to keep you from
spreading it around. Far as I can tell though you're not even "expressing
yourself," you're just posting a story that belongs to DC for everyone to read.
I myself don't care as I prefer to remain heartless and apathetic, but it's
not free speech by any means.
-Aaron!
eternally
Pariah wrote:
>
> dcse...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > In article <199807011508...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> > aaro...@aol.com (Aaron Mojo) wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >-Aaron!
> >
> > These stories don't belong to DC they just like to be jack asses. And guess
> > what? I'm a free speech site now ba-bay.
>
> it or not is irrelevent.
>
> Pariah
Pariah, you're a bright person. you and everyone else knows that there
are more issues involved in ownership than that.
- e.
eternally
Aaron Mojo wrote:
>
> >And I
> >could give a shit if they like it or not, I'm gonna get some free speech
> >stuff
> >on there soon.
>
>
> -Aaron!
huh? how do you figure that?
please explain why this is "stealing" and how all the stories in
question "belong to DC".
- e.
Aaron Moss
Because when you write something using characters owned by someone else,
(and DC owns them as long as they have a copyright on them) that is
illeagal.
Aaron Moss
Jamie Coville
On 3 Jul 1998 00:30:35 GMT, aaro...@aol.com (Aaron Mojo) wrote:
>>please explain why this is "stealing" and how all the stories in
>>question "belong to DC".
>
> The story proposal "Twilight" is a story which, to my knowledge, DC Comics
>purchased from Alan Moore, meaning they own it. It also contains characters
>which DC happens to own. In other words, regardless of the author, the story
>contains characters which are owned by DC and the story itself is also owned by
>DC. Therefore, posting the story is basically stealing it from DC Comics.
>
>-Aaron!
Did DC buy the story off Moore? From what I read Twilight is a
proposal, not a story so maybe DC didn't buy it.
Last I heard DC *says* they own the copyright to the proposal, but
have yet to prove that.. even if they did it doesn't means that DC
owns the proposal because Moore had the copyright the moment he wrote
it.
Regards, | The History of Superhero Comic Books!
Jamie Coville | http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8580/
Aaron Mojo
>please explain why this is "stealing" and how all the stories in
>question "belong to DC".
The story proposal "Twilight" is a story which, to my knowledge, DC Comics
purchased from Alan Moore, meaning they own it. It also contains characters
which DC happens to own. In other words, regardless of the author, the story
contains characters which are owned by DC and the story itself is also owned by
DC. Therefore, posting the story is basically stealing it from DC Comics.
-Aaron!
(And don't anybody else E-Mail me with the defense that me reading comics
without paying for them is also stealing from DC. The owner of the shop BOUGHT
those comics from DC meaning that HE paid for them and therefore OWNS them.)
cove...@my-dejanews.com
You don't seem to have the *whole* proposal on your site do you, do you? To
confirm if I was right, I just did a search for it on the Web. What I
discovered was that you were right. It seems, recently, that DC has been
clamping down. I didn't know that. I figured that it had been up for so
long that if DC really had a problem with it, they would have said something
long before now. Was *that* a crazy thought!
GSG
In article <6nf0jg$bcl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
dcse...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> DC does care, if they didn't they wouldn't force every other site off. And I
> could give a shit if they like it or not, I'm gonna get some free speech stuff
> on there soon.
>
> 'Secrets
>
> In article <6nddlr$1if$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> cove...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > You missed my point. The guy was more or less saying "screw DC if they
don't
> > like it" and I asked if DC even cares anymore.
> >
> > GSG
cove...@my-dejanews.com
In article <6nf3c6$gom$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
dcse...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> In article <199807011508...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> aaro...@aol.com (Aaron Mojo) wrote:
>
> >
> >-Aaron!
>
> what? I'm a free speech site now ba-bay.
>
Then I guess it's also stealing if you let a friend read a comic that you
bought, something comic companies encourage. Your friend is getting the story
for free. By rights, he should have paid DC for that pleasure.
DC is a friend who's not letting you read the comic.
Technically, it's DC's property and we have no rights to it. They *are*
being uptight, though. Why should they care anymore. It was over ten years
ago in an almost different continuity. They couldn't do the story exactly
anymore (and shouldn't--the proposal needed some work) so it's not like the
whole thing will be ruined. And *most* comic readers don't even know about
it so it wouldn't be ruined for everybody anyway.
It'd be a nice gesture for them to let it get around but it is a corporate
poperty so they have every right to prevent pirates from releasing it on the
net.
The Great and Powerful Danny Sichel
It was a dark and stormy Fri, 03 Jul 1998 09:05:03 GMT. Suddenly,
Michael...@my-dejanews.com posted:
>>>please explain why this is "stealing" and how all the stories in
>>>question "belong to DC".
>> The story proposal "Twilight" is a story which, to my knowledge, DC Comics
>> purchased from Alan Moore, meaning they own it. It also contains characters
>> which DC happens to own. In other words, regardless of the author, the story
>> contains characters which are owned by DC and the story itself is also owned by
>> DC. Therefore, posting the story is basically stealing it from DC Comics.
> You're so wrong about this... I'm free to write whatever I want. I can't
> believe you think I can't write a GL or X-Men or Mickey Mouse story and put it
> on the web for free. Don't you understand what your right of free speech
> consists of?!
Oh, sure, fanfic is fine and dandy. In general.
The problem with the Twilight Proposal, though, is that DC _purchased_
it. They _own_ the Twilight Proposal, and they have the legal right to
determine how it gets used (or not used).
This may also apply to Jones's scripts for GL #48-50. I don't know.
However, if the lawyers get involved, Geocities is more likely to cut
their losses by purging the webpage in question.
(.. though I _would_ like to see the script for the last, unpublished,
issue of _Ray_...)
Dan McEwen
>On 3 Jul 1998 00:30:35 GMT, aaro...@aol.com (Aaron Mojo) wrote:
>
>>>please explain why this is "stealing" and how all the stories in
>>>question "belong to DC".
>>
>> The story proposal "Twilight" is a story which, to my knowledge, DC Comics
>>purchased from Alan Moore, meaning they own it. It also contains characters
>>which DC happens to own. In other words, regardless of the author, the story
>>contains characters which are owned by DC and the story itself is also owned by
>>DC. Therefore, posting the story is basically stealing it from DC Comics.
>>
>>-Aaron!
>
>Did DC buy the story off Moore? From what I read Twilight is a
>proposal, not a story so maybe DC didn't buy it.
If it uses DC characters, DC owns it.
Dan
fe...@lsh.org
Home Page - http://home.att.net/~djmcewen
Fanfic - http://home.att.net/~djmcewen/Integrated.html
Dan McEwen
On Fri, 03 Jul 1998 09:05:03 GMT, Michael...@my-dejanews.com
wrote:
>In article <199807030030...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> aaro...@aol.com (Aaron Mojo) wrote:
>>
>> >please explain why this is "stealing" and how all the stories in
>> >question "belong to DC".
>>
>> The story proposal "Twilight" is a story which, to my knowledge, DC Comics
>> purchased from Alan Moore, meaning they own it. It also contains characters
>> which DC happens to own. In other words, regardless of the author, the story
>> contains characters which are owned by DC and the story itself is also owned by
>> DC. Therefore, posting the story is basically stealing it from DC Comics.
>
> You're so wrong about this...I'm free to write whatever I want. I can't
>believe you think I can't write a GL or X-Men or Micky Mouse story and put it
>on the web for free. Don't you understand what your right 0of free speech
>consists of?!
I don't think you do. If DC wanted, they could go after anyone and
everyone uses their characters or concepts and tell them to cease and
desist.
Free speech is not about saying whatever you want. It's about not
having to stifle your words for fear of prosecution. It was made more
to keep people from being arrested for saying things that went against
the political climate of the time. It was also meant used
responsibly, though I think most people don't quite grasp that
concept.
Ken Small
Dan McEwen yammered...
>>Did DC buy the story off Moore? From what I read Twilight is a
>>proposal, not a story so maybe DC didn't buy it.
>If it uses DC characters, DC owns it.
That isn't true. Moore couldn't sell it, but DC would not own the
story or ideas that were original with Moore.
--
-Ken
Magic 8-Ball sez: Yes definitely
Dan McEwen
On 3 Jul 1998 19:31:43 GMT, k...@trdlnk.nukethispart.com (Ken Small)
wrote:
>Dan McEwen yammered...
>
>>>Did DC buy the story off Moore? From what I read Twilight is a
>>>proposal, not a story so maybe DC didn't buy it.
>
>>If it uses DC characters, DC owns it.
>
>That isn't true. Moore couldn't sell it, but DC would not own the
>story or ideas that were original with Moore.
>
But they could claim copyright infringement by it being published on
the web without their permission. You're right that DC doesn't own
the story, but it does own the characters.
cove...@my-dejanews.com
In article <6nj7bh$2...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
fe...@lsh.org (Dan McEwen) wrote:
>
> On Thu, 02 Jul 1998 17:06:26 GMT, jcov...@kingston.net (Jamie
> Coville) wrote:
>
> >
> >>>please explain why this is "stealing" and how all the stories in
> >>>question "belong to DC".
> >>
> >> The story proposal "Twilight" is a story which, to my knowledge, DC
Comics
> >>purchased from Alan Moore, meaning they own it. It also contains characters
> >>which DC happens to own. In other words, regardless of the author, the
story
> >>contains characters which are owned by DC and the story itself is also owned
by
> >>DC. Therefore, posting the story is basically stealing it from DC Comics.
> >>
> >
> >Did DC buy the story off Moore? From what I read Twilight is a
> >proposal, not a story so maybe DC didn't buy it.
>
> If it uses DC characters, DC owns it.
Are you sure it's that cut and dried? I can't write fan fiction if I wanted
to?
DC did pay for it so the point is moot anyway.
Captain Atom
Michael...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> You're so wrong about this...I'm free to write whatever I want. I can't
> believe you think I can't write a GL or X-Men or Micky Mouse story and put it
> on the web for free.
The key here is "for free." Charging for these stories is infringing on
DC's copyright, and they have every right to sue you for doing it.
You can't profit on their ideas. That's every bit a right as much as
free speech is.
--CAPTAIN ATOM
Jason Fliegel
In article <6ni6rt$jv2$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
<Michael...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
> You're so wrong about this...I'm free to write whatever I want. I can't
>believe you think I can't write a GL or X-Men or Micky Mouse story and put it
>consists of?!
>
Michael, you clearly don't understand the way U.S. law works. Copyright
law prevents you from infringing on others' copyrights, regardless of
whether you profit from your infringement. This has not been held to
violate the First Amendment, which prevents the Government (not private
individuals[*]) from interfering with the exercise of your right to free
speech. Bottom line: DC owns the copyright in Alan Moore's Twilight
proposal, and you are infringing upon their rights. They could easily
take legal action against you, and would almost certainly prevail if they
did so.
I am not a lawyer, and that was not legal advice.
[*] We could debate whether there is any meaningful distinction between
direct governmental action and the government's enforcement of private
causes of action, but not in this newsgroup.
--
Jason Fliegel
j-fl...@uchicago.edu
3L, University of Chicago Law School
Ken Small
Jason Fliegel yammered...
>Michael, you clearly don't understand the way U.S. law works. Copyright
>law prevents you from infringing on others' copyrights, regardless of
>whether you profit from your infringement. This has not been held to
>violate the First Amendment, which prevents the Government (not private
>individuals[*]) from interfering with the exercise of your right to free
>speech. Bottom line: DC owns the copyright in Alan Moore's Twilight
>proposal, and you are infringing upon their rights. They could easily
>take legal action against you, and would almost certainly prevail if they
>did so.
As I said elsewhere, DC does not automatically own the copyright
just because it contains their characters. At best, it gives them the
power to prevent it from being published. Moore still owns the story
and can change the characters and publish it-- which he couldn't do if
DC owned it.
--
-Ken
Magic 8-Ball sez: Cannot predict now
Dan McEwen
On Fri, 03 Jul 1998 21:24:14 GMT, cove...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>In article <6nj7bh$2...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
> fe...@lsh.org (Dan McEwen) wrote:
>> If it uses DC characters, DC owns it.
>
>
>Are you sure it's that cut and dried? I can't write fan fiction if I wanted
>to?
>
>DC did pay for it so the point is moot anyway.
Don't know for sure. I write fan fiction. If DC or Marvel told me I
had to take my stuff down, I'd have to do it. True, most of my stuff
is merely set in the comics universe, but I do use existing characters
from time to time.
Pariah
cove...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <6nf3c6$gom$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> dcse...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <199807011508...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> > aaro...@aol.com (Aaron Mojo) wrote:
> >
> > > This isn't free speech. It's stealing a story that belongs to DC.
> > >
> > >-Aaron!
> >
> > These stories don't belong to DC they just like to be jack asses. And guess
> > what? I'm a free speech site now ba-bay.
> >
> > 'Secrets
>
> Then I guess it's also stealing if you let a friend read a comic that you
> bought, something comic companies encourage. Your friend is getting the story
> for free. By rights, he should have paid DC for that pleasure.
>
> DC is a friend who's not letting you read the comic.
It's mean, perhaps, but legal.
> Technically, it's DC's property and we have no rights to it. They *are*
> being uptight, though. Why should they care anymore. It was over ten years
> ago in an almost different continuity. They couldn't do the story exactly
> anymore (and shouldn't--the proposal needed some work) so it's not like the
> whole thing will be ruined. And *most* comic readers don't even know about
> it so it wouldn't be ruined for everybody anyway.
I agree. I think they're being retentive about it as well, especially since they
have no intention of publishing it... however, doing so against their will is in
fact illegal and wrong, just as it would be wrong if someone read a comic I bought
without my permission.
> It'd be a nice gesture for them to let it get around but it is a corporate
> poperty so they have every right to prevent pirates from releasing it on the
> net.
Uh huh.
Pariah
cove...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Are you sure it's that cut and dried? I can't write fan fiction if I wanted
> to?
>
> DC did pay for it so the point is moot anyway.
Legally, they can stop you... but for mere fanfic they probably will not unless
you're making money off of it.
Kte'pi
I'm not sure why this is all so relevant, BUT.
If DC did pay for the Twilight proposal, it's more than just a
story with DC characters in it, it's work for hire. You don't own the
stories you write for companies like Marvel and DC, nor the characters
created in the process, unless you have a special agreement with them
which states so. I'm sure Moore didn't in Twilight's case. That's why
things like Epic Comics and Vertigo at DC were begun - because the stuff
was creator-owned (although for Vertigo, I guess that only counted for
post-Vertigoisation material.)
That's the the letter of the law. The actual practise of the law,
though, implies that if you aren't a) receiving profits from it or b)
preventing DC from making a profit, it probably wouldn't ever make it
into court, much less result in much of a punishment.
But who really cares?
-- -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
"A being can only be touched where it yields. For a woman, this is under
her dress; and for a god, it's on the throat of the animal being sacrificed."
:: George Bataille, "Guilty"
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Bill Kte'pi http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/4186/
Christopher J. Sypal
>In article <199807030030...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> aaro...@aol.com (Aaron Mojo) wrote:
>>
>> >please explain why this is "stealing" and how all the stories in
>> >question "belong to DC".
>>
>> The story proposal "Twilight" is a story which, to my knowledge, DC Comics
>> purchased from Alan Moore, meaning they own it. It also contains characters
>> which DC happens to own. In other words, regardless of the author, the story
>> contains characters which are owned by DC and the story itself is also owned by
>> DC. Therefore, posting the story is basically stealing it from DC Comics.
>
> You're so wrong about this...I'm free to write whatever I want. I can't
>believe you think I can't write a GL or X-Men or Micky Mouse story and put it
>on the web for free. Don't you understand what your right 0of free speech
>consists of?!
Don't you understand what trademarks and copyrights are? You can go
ahead with the GL and X-Men stuff as DC and Marvel probably wouldn't
care that much, however If Disney finds out you are writing Mickey
Mouse stories...
-cJs-
Jason Fliegel
In article <6njp3j$kek$1...@client2.news.psi.net>,
Ken Small <k...@trdlnk.nukethispart.com> wrote:
>
>As I said elsewhere, DC does not automatically own the copyright
>just because it contains their characters. At best, it gives them the
>power to prevent it from being published. Moore still owns the story
>and can change the characters and publish it-- which he couldn't do if
>DC owned it.
From what I've heard, Moore either did this as work-for-hire, or sold the
copyright to DC at some point, so DC does hold the copyright. It's
possible I was misinformed, and Moore owns the copyright, in which case
putting it on the web would violate his copyright.
Michael...@my-dejanews.com
In article <359db25f...@news.radiks.net>,
I can't sell Mickey Mouse stories, or Batman stories. I can write as many
as I want. No one can stop me. That's an important distinction...one that
you may be taking for granted, but in the post I was responding to it was
implied (perhaps carelessly) that I can't sit here on my couch and write
whatever the hell I want. I believe I can.
However, I don't claim to be an expert.
I'd love to get Bob Ingersol's expert opinion.
Mike Murray
mikeyc...@my-dejanews.com
In article <6nj2uj$l7r$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
cove...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> You don't seem to have the *whole* proposal on your site do you, do you?
He does. It's just that there are errors in the HTML so that you can't
see all of it. You have to manually type in some of the URLs, incrementing the
page number, and even then you have to view the source of the page to see the
text.
Meanwhile, in the Emerald Twilight pages, the GIFs are missing, and the
Enemy Mine text is so poorly formatted it's an effort to read.
Maybe it's all part of some ploy to fool DC's lawyers?
Mike
Bob Ingersoll
On Sun, 05 Jul 1998 05:31:50 GMT, Michael...@my-dejanews.com
wrote:
>>
>
> I can't sell Mickey Mouse stories, or Batman stories. I can write as many
>as I want. No one can stop me. That's an important distinction...one that
>you may be taking for granted, but in the post I was responding to it was
>implied (perhaps carelessly) that I can't sit here on my couch and write
>whatever the hell I want. I believe I can.
>
>However, I don't claim to be an expert.
> I'd love to get Bob Ingersol's expert opinion.
>
>
First of all -- minor point -- while I don't know who Bob
Ingersol is, Bob Ingersoll does post and lurk here from time to time.
Second point. We have to get copyright and trademark
separate. If you write your own, original Mickey Mouse stories, you
wouldn't be violating Disney's copyright. A copyright violation is
when you copy a pre-existing work. If your story is original, it
doesn't copy a pre-existing work could wouldn't violate copyright.
It could violate Disney's trademark on the character. That's
another matter.
If you write your own Mickey Mouse stories and do nothing more
with them than read them for your own enjoyment, you wouldn't be
violating Disney's trademark, because you wouldn't be publishing them.
As soon as you shared the stories with anyone else -- whether it was
to print them, post them on the web or hand them out among friends --
you are technically violating Disney's trademark on Mickey Mouse.
This would be true, even if you weren't making any money off the
endeavor. Merely publishing the works in some way could violate
Disney's trademark.
Now, posting the TWILIGHT proposal here wouldn't violate DC's
trademark. It would, however, violate DC's (or Alan Moore's)
copyright in the material. (I qualified, because I don't know who owns
the copyright. If Alan wrote it as work-for-hire and DC paid Alan
Moore for the proposal then didn't use it, DC owns the copyright.
Likewise, if DC paid Alan Moore for all rights, it owns the copyright.
If DC didn't pay Alan, Alan would own the copyright.
As I don't know who owns the copyright, I couldn't say, for
certain who's copyright you'd be violating. But you would be
violating someone's.
In the same way, if someone were to post the plot outline for
the Captain America novel Tony Isabella and I wrote, it would violate
Marvel's copyright in the material. Hell, if I posted the outline, it
would violate Marvel's copyright, even though I have a legal right to
own a copy of the outline.
I came in late, so I'm not sure how this started. Does this
answer the questions?
Bob
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
eternally (eter...@hotmail.com) wrote:
: please explain why this is "stealing" and how all the stories in
: question "belong to DC".
Sure. DC paid Moore for the proposal, and now owns that as well as the
characters in question.
- Elayne
--
What I mean by deviant: completely lacking in the social skills and
knowledge possessed by most of the rest of humanity... Most of us are
perfectly normal most of the time. We only become jerks and morons on
Usenet, like other decent people. -- Andrew C. Lannen
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
cove...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
: > If it uses DC characters, DC owns it.
: Are you sure it's that cut and dried? I can't write fan fiction if I wanted
: to?
My understanding is that, as a rule, DC doesn't go after fanfic featuring
DC characters, as they consider it pretty small potatoes. But they could
if they wanted to (i.e., they'd be within their legal rights to issue
cease-and-desists).
eternally
Dan McEwen wrote:
>
>
>
> If it uses DC characters, DC owns it.
that's a logical fallacy. DC still only owns the characters, not
the stories, otherwise they would own a story as soon as someone
came up with it, before they paid the writer for it...
- e .
eternally
The Great and Powerful Danny Sichel wrote:
>
>
>
> (.. though I _would_ like to see the script for the last, unpublished,
> issue of _Ray_...)
BIG time. if anyone has a URL for that, please post it or
email it to me...
- e.
eternally
Todd VerBeek, gwm wrote:
>
> dcse...@my-dejanews.com said:
> >Glad to see you like the page, DC will never find out who I am because I used
> >a different name on signing up for Geocities, Hotmail, and Dejanews. Plus I
> >never put in my real address. I'd like to see them try and do anything to my
> >ass.
>
> If they can convince a court with the appropriate jurisdiction that they
> have a legitimate case against you (and an adolescent "dare" of this sort
> would certainly help support their arguments), your smokescreen can be
> blown away with a few simple subpoenas.
not really. if he's being smart, he can be literally untraceable.
trust me, i'm in tech support for a major internet company.
the worst DC can do to him is get geocities to can his site, and he can
just move it somewhere else. it really wouldn't be worth DC's trouble.
which is yet another reason why this whole conversation is moot.
- e.
eternally
Kte'pi wrote:
>
> I'm not sure why this is all so relevant, BUT.
>
> If DC did pay for the Twilight proposal, it's more than just a
> story with DC characters in it, it's work for hire. You don't own the
> stories you write for companies like Marvel and DC, nor the characters
> created in the process, unless you have a special agreement with them
> which states so. I'm sure Moore didn't in Twilight's case. That's why
> things like Epic Comics and Vertigo at DC were begun - because the stuff
> was creator-owned (although for Vertigo, I guess that only counted for
> post-Vertigoisation material.)
>
> That's the the letter of the law. The actual practise of the law,
> though, implies that if you aren't a) receiving profits from it or b)
> preventing DC from making a profit, it probably wouldn't ever make it
> into court, much less result in much of a punishment.
>
> But who really cares?
this is the first sensible post in this thread so far... :)
- e.
eternally
Bob Ingersoll wrote:
>
>
>
> As I don't know who owns the copyright, I couldn't say, for
> certain who's copyright you'd be violating. But you would be
> violating someone's.
>
> In the same way, if someone were to post the plot outline for
> the Captain America novel Tony Isabella and I wrote, it would violate
> Marvel's copyright in the material. Hell, if I posted the outline, it
> would violate Marvel's copyright, even though I have a legal right to
> own a copy of the outline.
>
> I came in late, so I'm not sure how this started. Does this
> answer the questions?
yes, quite.
and i think you brought up a good point, which is that we don't really
know who actually owns the copyrights. there are a lot of "i heard
this" and "i think that", but no one knows.
i suspect that if Alan Moore owned it, he might actually encourage sites
to post it, or at the very least not care. :)
- e.
eternally
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput wrote:
>
> eternally (eter...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>
> : please explain why this is "stealing" and how all the stories in
> : question "belong to DC".
>
> Sure. DC paid Moore for the proposal, and now owns that as well as the
> characters in question.
>
> - Elayne
but we don't know that for sure. you are quoting speculation as fact.
(i have heard just as much speculation that Moore still owns the
proposal...)
- e.
Todd VerBeek, gwm
>> dcse...@my-dejanews.com said:
>> >Glad to see you like the page, DC will never find out who I am because I used
>> >a different name on signing up for Geocities, Hotmail, and Dejanews. Plus I
>> >never put in my real address. I'd like to see them try and do anything to my
>> >ass.
>Todd VerBeek, gwm wrote:
>> If they can convince a court with the appropriate jurisdiction that they
>> have a legitimate case against you (and an adolescent "dare" of this sort
>> would certainly help support their arguments), your smokescreen can be
>> blown away with a few simple subpoenas.
My pal eternally said:
>not really. if he's being smart, he can be literally untraceable.
>trust me, i'm in tech support for a major internet company.
My tech credentials can beat up your tech credentials. {smile}
Just about anything on the net can be traced if there's a will to do it.
About the only thing that might protect him is the use of overseas
anonymizing services(*) with policies analogous to those of Swiss banks.
It'd be child's play to find the IP address from which he's accessing
DejaNews or Geocities (just sit on the right net segment and listen).
Once you do that, you can subpoena the folks who own that address for the
access logs that'll probably tell who was using it. There's billing info
for him just a few steps away.
(*) And by this, I'm =not= talking about public toys like Hotmail,
Geocities, and DejaNews.
>the worst DC can do to him is get geocities to can his site,
... and haul his little ass into court (see above comments) {smile} ...
>and he can
>just move it somewhere else. it really wouldn't be worth DC's trouble.
That'd be up to DC to decide.
Cheers, Todd
---
cDATA 2000, a comic-book database program for the next millennium.
Download it from <http://www.RZero.com/soft/>
Alan Meisler
In article <6nqrqg$l...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
Binge...@worldnet.att.net (Bob Ingersoll) wrote:
> Second point. We have to get copyright and trademark
> separate. If you write your own, original Mickey Mouse stories, you
> wouldn't be violating Disney's copyright. A copyright violation is
> when you copy a pre-existing work. If your story is original, it
> doesn't copy a pre-existing work could wouldn't violate copyright.
>
Furthermore, if I write a Mickey Mouse story, I own the copyright, even though
I may not own any of the characters. Disney has no right to use the story
without my permission even though they may own all the characters.
(Right?)
This is the reason why many editors refuse to even look at unsolicited stories.
>
> Now, posting the TWILIGHT proposal here wouldn't violate DC's
> trademark. It would, however, violate DC's (or Alan Moore's)
But if the TWILIGHT proposal uses trademarked DC characters, which I thought
it does, doesn't that infringe on the trademarks as well?
> In the same way, if someone were to post the plot outline for
> the Captain America novel Tony Isabella and I wrote, it would violate
> Marvel's copyright in the material. Hell, if I posted the outline, it
> would violate Marvel's copyright, even though I have a legal right to
> own a copy of the outline.
Could you publish a version that didn't explicitly use those Marvel heroes?
(Assuming Tony didn't mind :)
Alan
Michael...@my-dejanews.com
In article <6nqrqg$l...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
Binge...@worldnet.att.net (Bob Ingersoll) wrote:
>
> wrote:
>
> >>
> >
> > I can't sell Mickey Mouse stories, or Batman stories. I can write as many
> >as I want. No one can stop me. That's an important distinction...one that
> >you may be taking for granted, but in the post I was responding to it was
> >implied (perhaps carelessly) that I can't sit here on my couch and write
> >whatever the hell I want. I believe I can.
> >
> >However, I don't claim to be an expert.
> > I'd love to get Bob Ingersol's expert opinion.
> >
> >
> First of all -- minor point -- while I don't know who Bob
> Ingersol is, Bob Ingersoll does post and lurk here from time to time.
>
> separate. If you write your own, original Mickey Mouse stories, you
> wouldn't be violating Disney's copyright. A copyright violation is
> when you copy a pre-existing work. If your story is original, it
> doesn't copy a pre-existing work could wouldn't violate copyright.
>
> another matter.
>
> If you write your own Mickey Mouse stories and do nothing more
> with them than read them for your own enjoyment, you wouldn't be
> violating Disney's trademark, because you wouldn't be publishing them.
> As soon as you shared the stories with anyone else -- whether it was
> to print them, post them on the web or hand them out among friends --
> you are technically violating Disney's trademark on Mickey Mouse.
> This would be true, even if you weren't making any money off the
> endeavor. Merely publishing the works in some way could violate
> Disney's trademark.
>
> trademark. It would, however, violate DC's (or Alan Moore's)
> the copyright. If Alan wrote it as work-for-hire and DC paid Alan
> Moore for the proposal then didn't use it, DC owns the copyright.
> Likewise, if DC paid Alan Moore for all rights, it owns the copyright.
> If DC didn't pay Alan, Alan would own the copyright.
>
> certain who's copyright you'd be violating. But you would be
> violating someone's.
>
> the Captain America novel Tony Isabella and I wrote, it would violate
> Marvel's copyright in the material. Hell, if I posted the outline, it
> would violate Marvel's copyright, even though I have a legal right to
> own a copy of the outline.
>
> answer the questions?
>
>
Yes, thanks. I was actually looking for my old college friend Bob
Ingersol, but your insight is appreciated.
Just kidding. Thanks again.
MM
jdes...@novanthealth.org
> Coville) wrote:
>
> >Did DC buy the story off Moore? From what I read Twilight is a
> >proposal, not a story so maybe DC didn't buy it.
>
No, if DC bought the proposal from Moore than they own the story. Don't
confuse copyright with trademark. Ownership of a story and ownership of a
trademarked character are two separate issues.
I don't know if DC ever bought the proposal from the Moore or not (I've heard
conflicting opinions). If they did not, then the story is owned by Moore
(although he would not be able to publish it without DC's permission to use
their trademarks unless he changed the characters). If they have purchased
the proposal than they own the story.
Killans - First And Last And Always
Todd VerBeek, gwm <ver...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>the worst DC can do to him is get geocities to can his site,
>
>... and haul his little ass into court (see above comments) {smile} ...
>
>>and he can
>>just move it somewhere else. it really wouldn't be worth DC's trouble.
>
>That'd be up to DC to decide.
But aren't DC's lawyers virtually obliged to go after him? As I understand
it, if a company knowingly allows someone else to use their trademarks, the
conmpany reliquishes any rights to those trademarks. Which means they *have*
to crack down on even relatively harmless infringements. Or have I
misunderstood something?
Mike
--
Mike Collins
Bob Ingersoll
Meisler) wrote:
>
>Furthermore, if I write a Mickey Mouse story, I own the copyright, even though
>I may not own any of the characters. Disney has no right to use the story
>without my permission even though they may own all the characters.
>(Right?)
>This is the reason why many editors refuse to even look at unsolicited stories.
>
That is correct. Still, you couldn't publish the story
anywhere without Disney's permission, so writing it without Disney's
permission would be pointless. (Except, of course for the possibility
that you just wanted to write a Mickey story for your own jollies.)
>> Now, posting the TWILIGHT proposal here wouldn't violate DC's
>> trademark. It would, however, violate DC's (or Alan Moore's)
>
>But if the TWILIGHT proposal uses trademarked DC characters, which I thought
>it does, doesn't that infringe on the trademarks as well?
>
It does use DC trademarked characters. Publishing the
TWILIGHT proposal might, indeed, violate DC's trademark. That could
depend on how it was published. Trademark centers on what is used in
the advertising and packaging. It doesn't concern itself with what's
on the inside, as that is covered by copyright. So, if someone simply
posted TWILIGHT on the net with no cover or packaging that utilized
DC's trademarks, there might not be a trademark violation.
>
>Could you publish a version that didn't explicitly use those Marvel heroes?
>(Assuming Tony didn't mind :)
>
Probably not. Marvel owns the copyright on the actual story
and the events that happened in that story. Changing Cap to, oh say
AGENT AMERICA and then running a story that had the same events, would
still violate Marvel's copyright.
Bob
Bob Ingersoll
wrote:
>
> Yes, thanks. I was actually looking for my old college friend Bob
>Ingersol, but your insight is appreciated.
>
Oh. Oops. Sorry for having butted in.
Bob
Kevin J. Maroney
>> Sure. DC paid Moore for the proposal, and now owns that as well as the
>> characters in question.
>> - Elayne
>
>but we don't know that for sure. you are quoting speculation as fact.
Rich Johnston said this in March:
>He's written it after Watchmen after DC asked him to. They paid him for the
>proposal but did nothing with it.
So, provide counter-evidence or fall silent on this issue.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | Crossover Technologies | kmar...@crossover.com
"There is a better world. There has to be."--Kay Challis
eternally
>
>
> My pal eternally said:
> >not really. if he's being smart, he can be literally untraceable.
> >trust me, i'm in tech support for a major internet company.
>
> My tech credentials can beat up your tech credentials. {smile}
possibly. my group is very specialized and isn't the H-K <g> group.
> Just about anything on the net can be traced if there's a will to do it.
> About the only thing that might protect him is the use of overseas
> anonymizing services(*) with policies analogous to those of Swiss
that's one way, but i honestly don't even think he'd need to go this
far. i mean, relaying thru any provider outside the US at all, anon
service or not, would put a serious kibosh on legal efforts and be
fairly easy to set up.
> It'd be child's play to find the IP address from which he's accessing
> DejaNews or Geocities (just sit on the right net segment and listen).
really. well, do it, then.
i know for me, it would be consierably more than "child's play"; it
would be a major pain in the ass. even the people in our net-abuse
department would consider this a major undertaking, possibly not even
do-able if he's crafty. (it's the first hop that's the most tricky, as
i'm sure you know).
but since it's "child's play" for you, go ahead and get his IP address
and post it...
- e.
eternally
hang on a second - first of all, i never said i had any counter
evidence. i'm just saying until i hear it from someone directly
involved, i'll be skeptical.
secondly, you consider what you just posted "evidence" because...?
- e.
eternally
>
>
> >
> >That'd be up to DC to decide.
>
> But aren't DC's lawyers virtually obliged to go after him? As I
unless they feel for some reason they don't have a case...
hmmm....
- e.
eternally
>
> In article <6nj7bh$2...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
> fe...@lsh.org (Dan McEwen) wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 02 Jul 1998 17:06:26 GMT, jcov...@kingston.net (Jamie
> > Coville) wrote:
> >
> > >Did DC buy the story off Moore? From what I read Twilight is a
> > >proposal, not a story so maybe DC didn't buy it.
> >
> > If it uses DC characters, DC owns it.
>
> No, if DC bought the proposal from Moore than they own the story. Don't
> confuse copyright with trademark. Ownership of a story and ownership of a
> trademarked character are two separate issues.
>
> I don't know if DC ever bought the proposal from the Moore or not (I've heard
> conflicting opinions). If they did not, then the story is owned by Moore
> (although he would not be able to publish it without DC's permission to use
> their trademarks unless he changed the characters). If they have purchased
> the proposal than they own the story.
an interesting twist on all this:
i happened to be rereading a Dark Horse Comics title last night, Tales
To Offend, by Frank Miller; and what do i see on the last page of the
book, but Brainiac 5 and Saturn Girl waltzing thru, prominently featured
on the last splash page.
hmmm. this most certainly violates trademark law, right?
anyone think DC's gonna do anything about it? no, of course not.
i hereby render this discussion moot! :)
- e.
Michael...@my-dejanews.com
eter...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Elayne Wechsler-Chaput wrote:
> >
> > eternally (eter...@hotmail.com) wrote:
> >
> > : please explain why this is "stealing" and how all the stories in
> > : question "belong to DC".
> >
> > characters in question.
> >
> > - Elayne
>
> but we don't know that for sure. you are quoting speculation as fact.
> proposal...)
>
> - e.
>
Well, isn't it stealing if Alan Moore owns it?
MM
Pariah
eternally <eter...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
> i happened to be rereading a Dark Horse Comics title last night, Tales
> To Offend, by Frank Miller; and what do i see on the last page of the
> book, but Brainiac 5 and Saturn Girl waltzing thru, prominently featured
> on the last splash page.
>
> hmmm. this most certainly violates trademark law, right?
>
>
> anyone think DC's gonna do anything about it? no, of course not.
This could be a matter that DC might want to use a Darkhorse character
(such as the Shadow) for a cameo sometime and would not want to be sued.
Pariah
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: an interesting twist on all this:
: i happened to be rereading a Dark Horse Comics title last night, Tales
: To Offend, by Frank Miller; and what do i see on the last page of the
: book, but Brainiac 5 and Saturn Girl waltzing thru, prominently featured
: on the last splash page.
: hmmm. this most certainly violates trademark law, right?
Depends. Were they there for satirical purposes (i.e., as a "wink" to
fans)? If so, then no, it's considered fair use. "Satirical" cameos are
done all the time in comics.
twis...@hotmail.com
> > >> characters in question.
> > >> - Elayne
> > >
> > >but we don't know that for sure. you are quoting speculation as fact.
> >
> >
> > >He's written it after Watchmen after DC asked him to. They paid him for the
> > >proposal but did nothing with it.
> >
> > So, provide counter-evidence or fall silent on this issue.
> >
> > --
> > Kevin J. Maroney | Crossover Technologies | kmar...@crossover.com
> > "There is a better world. There has to be."--Kay Challis
>
> hang on a second - first of all, i never said i had any counter
> evidence. i'm just saying until i hear it from someone directly
> involved, i'll be skeptical.
>
> secondly, you consider what you just posted "evidence" because...?
>
> - e.
Okay, full story time. I was going to publish Twilight: A Proposal By Alan
Moore in print. Agreed with Alan and everything, originally face to face and
then over the phone.
I the announced my intention and received DC legal's first ever Cease And
Desist e-mail (I wonder if I'll ever get another one?)
I talked to DC and talked to Alan. They said they'd bought the proposal, but
Alan's unwillingness to continue work for DC doomed it. Alan did an "oh
yeah..." kind of thing and confirmed that money had passed hands.
Rich Johnston
twis...@hotmail.com
Killans - First And Last And Always
The point is that they have to err on the side of being overzealous - i.e.
pursuing it even when they don't have a particularly strong case. They *can't*
risk losing the trademark rights, so they're obliged to go after people even
if their case isn't good.
Given the amount of money Time Warner can afford to spend on a case, it's
doubtful anyone could afford to fight it in court anyway. It wouldn't
really matter whether they have a case. If that sounds like little more
than bullying to you, than that's probably because it is little more than
bullying, but that's the way it often goes down.
Anyway, the fact is that DC's lawyer's *have* gotten other Web sites to take
down the Twilight proposal. This isn't just idle speculation. See:
http://www.hoboes.com/html/Comics/Twilight/
if you don't believe me.
Pariah
Killans - First And Last And Always <mcol...@nyx.net> wrote in article
> The point is that they have to err on the side of being overzealous -
i.e.
> pursuing it even when they don't have a particularly strong case. They
*can't*
> risk losing the trademark rights, so they're obliged to go after people
even
> if their case isn't good.
They don't always, only when they're rights are in danger. They don't go
after fanfic artists, even though their case is good because there's not
much point in it.
Pariah
Pariah
Michael...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article
<6nv3nc$qkd$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> In article <35A131...@hotmail.com>,
> eter...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > but we don't know that for sure. you are quoting speculation as fact.
> > (i have heard just as much speculation that Moore still owns the
> > proposal...)
Is Rich Johnson pointed out, it is more than speculation.
> Well, isn't it stealing if Alan Moore owns it?
No, because they paid Alan Moore for it.
Todd VerBeek, gwm
>> >not really. if he's being smart, he can be literally untraceable.
>> >trust me, i'm in tech support for a major internet company.
>Todd VerBeek, gwm wrote:
>> Just about anything on the net can be traced if there's a will to do it.
>> About the only thing that might protect him is the use of overseas
>> anonymizing services(*) with policies analogous to those of Swiss
My pal eternally said:
>that's one way, but i honestly don't even think he'd need to go this
>far. i mean, relaying thru any provider outside the US at all, anon
>service or not, would put a serious kibosh on legal efforts and be
>fairly easy to set up.
So is a Swiss bank account. But I really don't think the indvidual in
question has bothered to do what you describe. He probably thinks a
Hotmail account disguises him completely.
>> It'd be child's play to find the IP address from which he's accessing
>> DejaNews or Geocities (just sit on the right net segment and listen).
>really. well, do it, then.
>
>i know for me, it would be consierably more than "child's play"; it
>would be a major pain in the ass. even the people in our net-abuse
>department would consider this a major undertaking, possibly not even
>do-able if he's crafty. (it's the first hop that's the most tricky, as
>i'm sure you know).
>
>but since it's "child's play" for you, go ahead and get his IP address
>and post it...
I didn't say it would be "child's play" for =me=, or that I had enough
interest in the case to do it. As it happens, I don't personally have the
tools I'd need for this sort of thing at hand - or even at arm's length.
But they exist, many people have them, and (reminding you of my original
qualifier) IF SOMEONE HAS THE WILL TO, it can be done.
Michael...@my-dejanews.com
Hey, I was only joking. No, I misspelled your nme even though "The Law Is
An Ass" is one of my favorite columns anywhere.
Have they ever been collected?
Mike Murray
Bob Ingersoll
wrote:
>I
> Hey, I was only joking. No, I misspelled your nme even though "The Law Is
>An Ass" is one of my favorite columns anywhere.
So was I. I thought that was clear from the context so didn't
bother with an emoticon.
>
> Have they ever been collected?
>
Unfortunately, no.
Bob
eternally
>
> In article <35A274...@hotmail.com>,
> eter...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Kevin J. Maroney wrote:
> > >
> > > eternally <eter...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >> Sure. DC paid Moore for the proposal, and now owns that as well as the
> > > >> characters in question.
> > > >> - Elayne
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >He's written it after Watchmen after DC asked him to. They paid him for the
> > > >proposal but did nothing with it.
> > >
> > > So, provide counter-evidence or fall silent on this issue.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Kevin J. Maroney | Crossover Technologies | kmar...@crossover.com
> > > "There is a better world. There has to be."--Kay Challis
> >
> > hang on a second - first of all, i never said i had any counter
> > evidence. i'm just saying until i hear it from someone directly
> > involved, i'll be skeptical.
> >
> > secondly, you consider what you just posted "evidence" because...?
> >
> > - e.
>
> Okay, full story time. I was going to publish Twilight: A Proposal By Alan
> Moore in print. Agreed with Alan and everything, originally face to face and
> then over the phone.
>
> I the announced my intention and received DC legal's first ever Cease And
> Desist e-mail (I wonder if I'll ever get another one?)
>
> I talked to DC and talked to Alan. They said they'd bought the proposal, but
> Alan's unwillingness to continue work for DC doomed it. Alan did an "oh
> yeah..." kind of thing and confirmed that money had passed hands.
>
> Rich Johnston
> twis...@hotmail.com
ahhhhhhhhhh. okay, then. i guess my skepticism came from not knowing
who "Rich Johnston" was. :)
my ignorance. mea cupla.
a phone call with Alan is proof enough for me.
thanks for the info.
- e.
Kevin J. Maroney
>i happened to be rereading a Dark Horse Comics title last night, Tales
>To Offend, by Frank Miller; and what do i see on the last page of the
>book, but Brainiac 5 and Saturn Girl waltzing thru, prominently featured
>on the last splash page.
>
>hmmm. this most certainly violates trademark law, right?
No, because trademark law (basically) only protects the use of objects
on the packaging of or in the advertisements for items offered for
sale.
One-panel appearances by trademarked characters would almost never be
trademark violations; it is unlikely that they would be copyright
violations, either.
Dave Doty
Bob Ingersoll wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Jul 1998 07:52:42 GMT, Michael...@my-dejanews.com
> wrote:
>
> > Hey, I was only joking.
> So was I. I thought that was clear from the context so didn't
> bother with an emoticon.
Does this remind anyone else of the Jay Leno episode with the guy who played
Norm Peterson, when they would both keep ragging on 'Frasier' to see which
of them would break down and say "no, I was only kidding, I really like him"
first?
So, Bob, are you going to go straighten out our "Girlfrenzy" trademark argument
for us? :)
Dave Doty
Todd VerBeek, gwm
>>i happened to be rereading a Dark Horse Comics title last night, Tales
>>To Offend, by Frank Miller; and what do i see on the last page of the
>>book, but Brainiac 5 and Saturn Girl waltzing thru, prominently featured
>>on the last splash page.
>>hmmm. this most certainly violates trademark law, right?
My pal Kevin J. Maroney said:
>No, because trademark law (basically) only protects the use of objects
>on the packaging of or in the advertisements for items offered for
>sale.
This is an excellent example of how it can be helpful to look at the
etymology of fancy terms like "trademark": "Mark" = some design or a
distinctive name; something you use to identify a product. "Trade" = the
buying and selling of products or services. Therefore, "trademark" =
distinctive markings used in selling something.
(The meaning of "copyright" is left as an exercise for the reader.
Hint: split the word between the "y" and the "r".)
>One-panel appearances by trademarked characters would almost never be
>trademark violations;
They could be if the "panel" were the =cover=, but probably not otherwise.
>it is unlikely that they would be copyright
>violations, either.
This would usually fall under the "fair use" guidelines, allowing brief
excerpts for commentary, or for satire. "It was just a little joke,"
would be the defendant's summation.
Bob Ingersoll
wrote:
>
>
>
>Does this remind anyone else of the Jay Leno episode with the guy who played
>Norm Peterson, when they would both keep ragging on 'Frasier' to see which
>of them would break down and say "no, I was only kidding, I really like him"
>first?
At the risk of perpetuating my being likened to Norm Peterson,
sorry. I just didn't want anyone to think I was really upset, because
I neglected to use an emoticon.
>
>So, Bob, are you going to go straighten out our "Girlfrenzy" trademark argument
>for us? :)
>
>
What's the " 'Girlfrenzy' trademark argument?" he asked
trepidatiously.
Bob
Dave Doty
Bob Ingersoll wrote:
> What's the " 'Girlfrenzy' trademark argument?" he asked
> trepidatiously.
Apparently, there is a small press zine called "Girlfrenzy." After DC's big
Girlfrenzy
event, she apparently complained, DC gave her a small settlement, and it was all
over. Now there's a huge thread to decide which of the two parcticipants was
driven by selfishness, malice, and pure evil, and which of them represents
everything
that is good or true about the American legal system.
Hmm. Really, there's no bias in that summary of the thread at all.
To complicate matters, no one is certain whether the zine publisher actually
trademarked the name or not.
Dave
Michael...@my-dejanews.com
Binge...@worldnet.att.net (Bob Ingersoll) wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Jul 1998 19:06:20 -0500, Dave Doty <sd...@hal-pc.org>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >Does this remind anyone else of the Jay Leno episode with the guy who played
> >Norm Peterson, when they would both keep ragging on 'Frasier' to see which
> >of them would break down and say "no, I was only kidding, I really like him"
> >first?
>
> At the risk of perpetuating my being likened to Norm Peterson,
> sorry. I just didn't want anyone to think I was really upset, because
> I neglected to use an emoticon.
> >
That's not neglect- it's good taste.
This is one of those little things I feel compelled to harp on everytime it
comes up. I'm not sure why. People, knock it off with the emoticons.
MM...never used an emoticon. Never will.
Dave Doty
Michael...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> This is one of those little things I feel compelled to harp on everytime it
> comes up. I'm not sure why. People, knock it off with the emoticons.
I have to say, I like them. In fact, I often use them to distinguish when I'm
kidding
from when I'm not-- in other words, I don't just use them to avoid being
misconstrued, I will deliberately leave them when I *am* trying to be insulting
to someone. (Although sometimes I just forget.)
Of course, I also like to keep them simple. :), :(, maybe an occasional ;).
That's it.
Those complicated ones I can't even figure out half the time.
Dave Doty
Juliesback
>Date: Thu, Jul 9, 1998 12:35 EDT
>Message-id: <6o2ra5$3...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>
>>An Ass" is one of my favorite columns anywhere.
>>
> Unfortunately, no.
>
look forward to their sporadic (curse you! :) ) appearances in CBG.
______________________________________
Stephen Robinson
scholar, lover, crimefighter
"Quiet! Or Papa spank!"
-Batman to Selina Kyle in BATMAN #1
CyberJohns
1) How did DC and Marvel both get trademarks to "Scarecrow" and "Sandman"?
Yes, both characters are different...
2) Can I call a series "The Flying Rabbi and the Bionic Pope" without fear of
lawsuits from Columbia Pictures and Universal Studios? Last I heard, "flying"
and "bionic" are legitimate dictionary words, and while they can be
trademarked, they can't be if combined with another word (King Features owns
"The Phantom" and Marvel owns "The Stranger," but DC owns "The Phantom
Stranger").
Hypernrml
>Yes, both characters are different...
How about DC and Marvel and Erik Larsen all tradmarking "Mace" at the same time
(Guy's brother, some techno-ninja, and a guy with a mace)?
--Andrew
Karlabunka!
Bob Ingersoll
>Bob, if you're out there, I have a few questions:
>
>1) How did DC and Marvel both get trademarks to "Scarecrow" and "Sandman"?
>Yes, both characters are different...
I'm not sure that Marvel has a trademark on Sandman. THey may
have slapped the TM, but it may not be a registered mark.
>
>2) Can I call a series "The Flying Rabbi and the Bionic Pope" without fear of
>lawsuits from Columbia Pictures and Universal Studios? Last I heard, "flying"
>and "bionic" are legitimate dictionary words, and while they can be
>trademarked, they can't be if combined with another word (King Features owns
>"The Phantom" and Marvel owns "The Stranger," but DC owns "The Phantom
>Stranger").
I believe so. But as intellectual property isn't my
spaciality, you should consult someone whose specialty is,
Bob
Bob Ingersoll
>>1) How did DC and Marvel both get trademarks to "Scarecrow" and "Sandman"?
>>Yes, both characters are different...
>
>How about DC and Marvel and Erik Larsen all tradmarking "Mace" at the same time
>(Guy's brother, some techno-ninja, and a guy with a mace)?
Probably all three used the name and slapped the TM on the cover for
protection. I don't know if any of them ever registered the tm.
Bob
Hosun Semi-Week Lee
If you see (R) next to a name, it means it's a registered trademark. If
you see (TM), it means it's considered a trademark, but it's not
officially registered.
--
\\ \\ Hosun S. Lee * Vorpal Bunny(TM) * http://www.primenet.com/~holee/
\\-\\ "This list must be a practical joke.....'Ulysses' as the greatest
( 0-0) novel of the century?.....'Ulysses' is the biggest pile of
{_^_} gobbledygook ever perpetrated on the reading public. I defy
anyone to make sense of anything in that (admittedly, sometimes
poetic) flow of words, words, words." - Howard Paul Burgess, on
the Modern Library's top 100 novels list.