PDA

View Full Version : Closed Species? Please Read This



MkLXIV
03-13-2014, 04:48 PM
While I'm not quite sure when the whole "closed species" trend started or who started it (even better question- "or why"), I did a little research on if it's actually possible to copyright a fictional species.

The short annswer? No.

But why? Keep reading.

Though many people believe that copyright protects a creative work no matter what the form- this is not the case; if it was, there would be no patents or trademarks. In fact, there are several categories of creative works which copyright does not protect. One such category is ideas. Since a closed species does not take a specific form, it can not be copyrighted. These closed species are only a set of common attributes as ideas which make it identifiable- that means it could be covered under a trademark as it would identify the artist or their services, but not a copyright as it is only an idea and intangible on its own and members of the species have their own unique attributes (thus making a derivative work) which would technically differentiate them from the original definition of the species. Also, a copyright is only applicible to tangible works, making it even more impossible to gain a copyright over a fictional species as the fundamental components of the species are intangible and ideas- neither can be copyrighted.

Please note I am not a lawyer and just a fur with some knowledge about this stuff, but I did choose reliable sources of information.

Sources: LegalZoom and the United States Patent and Trademark Office

insanejoker
03-13-2014, 10:26 PM
Well, I suppose the best bet would be to respect the creator's wishes not to use their species, and to create your own. As an artist, I am fairly confident that I myself can make up a species of my own and feel more happy with that (as I can change what I want when I want), than taking someone else's design.

Of course, this also calls into question the financial aspect. You, nor I, can take the creatures from James Cameron's Avatar and hope to make a profit off of them without facing legal problems. You can draw them or draw others in that species appearance, but you cannot legally write a story and sell it with those exact same designs.

Closed species to me are the same as creature design. Obviously if you draw a mouse and put a star marking on its ear and say its a closed species, you can't, as the mouse isn't a made up species that someone owns. It's the design that is owned. This is probably why you don't see all the companies taking the Creature from 'Creature from the Black Lagoon' and making exact replicas for profit - only the original copyright holder can do that (in this case the company that owns the copyright, as the artist has sold it to them already).

A copyright protects your execution of said idea: the drawing, writing, video, etc. So once you put that down on paper, you automatically own that image. Obviously getting an official copyright helps immensely, but that's how it is.


Obviously, anything can be stolen, anyone can make a copycat version, and people can be downright assholes in observing the original artists wishes. So unless anyone plans on stealing, copycatting or making their own character of said closed species, I wouldn't worry about other people making a closed species.

MkLXIV
03-14-2014, 03:52 PM
While you bring up some good points, what I'm trying to get at is this: the actual design is slightly different for each of the species' mambers- unless you make a barebones version and copyright that, you can't own it by copyright becuase the mere design of a fictional species as it is intangible- copyright only protects tangible works. But trademarks, however, can apply to intangible things like company slogans, therefore possible to apply to a species' traits as a whole as long as they are not common.

athdaraxen
03-14-2014, 05:23 PM
Whenever I've seen a closed species most folks respect the creator enough to not copycat them. It may not be legally binding but most folks are ok with just following the rules on them. Usually.

insanejoker
03-14-2014, 05:47 PM
While you bring up some good points, what I'm trying to get at is this: the actual design is slightly different for each of the species' mambers- unless you make a barebones version and copyright that, you can't own it by copyright becuase the mere design of a fictional species as it is intangible- copyright only protects tangible works. But trademarks, however, can apply to intangible things like company slogans, therefore possible to apply to a species' traits as a whole as long as they are not common.

I suppose if you really want people to be horrible to artists, then you may tell other people it's ok legally to take another character artist's design. A closed species from what I've seen have specific visual characteristics for that species. Females might have large eyes or small eyes, small wings, longer limbs but short overall, and male might have large wings, three eyes, long limbs but bulkier. It's something that makes them stand out from another species. Variations of that same species is NOT another species. That makes no sense. While yes, you can use SIMILAR characteristics for your own characters (height, wings, etc), saying it's 'so and so's species design that I am using for a character I made up' without prior permission is sketchy at most, and that person will not ever own the species rights, so if they attempt to do anything like copyrighting etc. I can't imagine that going over well with the original artist. In short: Just /don't/ do it. It's going to cause headaches for everyone. Just because you might find a loophole to do something, I highly recommend against it.

How to Train Your Dragon: Lots of dragon designs. Each one, both in that concept stage and final design, are /all/ copyrighted and or trademarked. You can draw fan art of them, but that's the extent. You can't profit on a corporate level or production level. The species is Dragon. Lots of variations. All belonging to Dreamworks.

I'm not sure if you're trying to warn artists (if you are, surely you have tips to further protect someone's creation after looking through all of that information) or if you're trying to tell people you can do what you want with someone else's creation (I doubt this was your intent). For artists, I would contact a copyright attorney / lawyer for clarification on what someone can do and asking about protecting your designs and creations more thoroughly. Professionals recommend staying away from making something based off another person's design, however, so other artists should keep that in mind.

In all honesty, if you're an artist, act like one and show your creativity. Don't be a jerk and steal / copy someone else's idea or design.

MkLXIV
03-14-2014, 06:07 PM
Sheesh. I'm just trying to make a warning here that if you sue someone over taking a closed species, you might not have that much ground to stand on (if any). While I don't agree with (nor support) the concept of a closed species, I at least respect the artists' decisions to the extent of not making one myself or encouraging othes to do so.

If you came here to start a fight, I'm going to have to ask you to leave this thread. I'm just trying to provide a bit of information I've found as a warning to help others.

pomchi
03-14-2014, 06:48 PM
How to Train Your Dragon: Lots of dragon designs. Each one, both in that concept stage and final design, are /all/ copyrighted and or trademarked. You can draw fan art of them, but that's the extent. You can't profit on a corporate level or production level. The species is Dragon. Lots of variations. All belonging to Dreamworks.


This, I've been thinking for awhile about how many artists are making fan art of their favourite shows and selling it as buttons, prints, on t-shirts,etc. Isn't that stealing? I mean the fan art work / is your work / , but the content isn't. If I draw my little pony, pokemon or some other famous characters out there, aren't I stealing their profit? Do I have legal permission to sell anything with these characters?

lorenith
03-14-2014, 07:20 PM
IP law in general is a very fuzzy thing to begin with and that you are not a lawyer of any sort means you really shouldn't be dispensing legal advice as fact or at least you shouldn't be surprised when people try to have a conversation or debate with you over it.

That said, my understanding of IP law is that If it has a defining characteristic and has been used in art/stories/music/poetry/whatever it probably has some form of copyright protection, whether it is directly or indirectly. So a species can be closed, and a legal battle over it being copied and profited off of can potentially be won (or lost depending on the judge really), so long as that species likeness is used in some form of media.

Now whether that protection is afforded by copyright, or some other part of IP law I don't know. If I was a lawyer IP law is probably not something I would want to be involved in because whether you can win or lose a case is basically a crap shoot dependent on the judge and their interpretation more than other sorts of law.

MkLXIV
03-14-2014, 08:06 PM
Ok. I'm done trying to help wth this. No one seems to get the idea- am I supposed to give direct links now? Anyways, I am locking this thread in any way I can- trying to give information about a subject with so many flaws and misconceptions doesn't seem to work becuase it looks like other furs either don't want to change or at least be informed... :T

QT Melon
03-14-2014, 08:39 PM
If you have a tangible work behind it yes you can copyright a species. It has to be constantly established however to help your case.

The legal action you can take however varies in the US especially between registered and non registered copyright.

I can certainly provide you with examples that was done with lawyers that actually work in copyright law.

MkLXIV
03-14-2014, 08:47 PM
I am no longer attempting to help people in this thread. There's just too much debate, and I believe fights will form in this thread if it goes on.

FishNChips
03-14-2014, 10:21 PM
I think you can copyright Wookies, Uruk-Hai, Xenomorphs, Jedi, and Klingon.

But you can't copyright Orcs, Elves, Goblins, Zombies, Vampires, Unicorns, Giants, Wizards, Trolls, Ogres, Dwarves, Dragons or Wyverns.

A species/design has to be pretty specific and solidified in a fictional work and be unopen to interpretation I reckon.

QT Melon
03-14-2014, 10:35 PM
Pretty much but if an elf has specific designs it can be copyrighted especially after establishing it. Most mythological creatures are public domain.

It is like not being able to copyright a superhero but you can establish copyright to Superman

Also, I am confused. Were there posts deleted or something because I don't see any fighting?

lorenith
03-14-2014, 10:56 PM
Pretty much but if an elf has specific designs it can be copyrighted especially after establishing it. Most mythological creatures are public domain.

It is like not being able to copyright a superhero but you can establish copyright to Superman

Also, I am confused. Were there posts deleted or something because I don't see any fighting?

There have been none deleted as far as I can tell, I think the OP basically just feels like they're trying to do a public service and that any discussion on the topic is out of the question. Which is too bad, cause it can be a pretty interesting discussion given how fuzzy/confusing IP law is.

QT Melon
03-14-2014, 11:22 PM
The most interesting part about IP law is that what it's figured with laymen is that "if it looks like a ripoff, then it is a ripoff" Basically saying that if the average person thinks that a particular work is ripped off something/someone else then it can be taken to court.

However, the ruling is ultimately by a judge and not jury, so if the judge determines it's not really a ripoff then the case is lost. Right now the biggest issue is more with the fact that it's heavily weighted on the side of big companies than its original intent: that each person had their own little monopoly on their creative work.

Given that the average person who would have to go to court for copyright battles (with a registered copyright in the US in this example) they would not likely have a lawyer work pro bono, and those upfront costs are rather expensive if there may be little reward in your claim. Now of course if you win, you're able to sue for damages. This is a civil issue.

But companies have it so weighted for their product, people can really get excessive fines or jail time which isn't really what kind of penalty would happen if it were an individual or small time publisher. I do say excessive because the amount of fines is more than what an average person would win if a company contributed to a death of a person. IE like a plane crashing due to negligence.

I think the problem lies is that yes there are drama queens over minute little changes in their character that they feel the need to be overprotective, or laziness in designing a "species" where it's really just a cat with a long tail, or elves with fluffy ears or something to that effect, and they don't really take the time to capture it in writing and continue establishing their copyright of this species.

I don't think however we should be upset with them that we can't horn in on their creativity. Most people upset with this usually are those that don't create enough (in my opinion) to really establish something. They seem to take more hostility out on the smaller person who is just creating their own intended monopoly of creative work.

insanejoker
03-14-2014, 11:31 PM
No posts deleted on my end.

My comments may have come off as aggressive or negative to the OP, but the original post did not come off as very helpful or as a warning to artists. It came off a bit as 'yes, this is ok to happen', which obviously was not their intent, which was why I was trying to explain that yes, it is very much possible to copyright a closed species, and for it to remain a closed species, though there are fuzzy areas in which people can still do what they want with said species (fan art for example). The original post just seemed so 'might as well give up artists, your species is not yours to own!' and I wanted to give a counter point that saying, 'no, don't give up, it is within the realm of possibility to protect it should you ever find the need to'.

Which is why I was trying to explain that it is VERY possible to copyright a closed species and own said species, and trying to explain the difference between taking someone else's creation and creating a few variations of it (such as a few shorter males or females than originally stated in species reference sheet), and having your own species have similar visual characteristics to someone else's (bat wings, bird wings, claws, cat eyes). If this didn't come off clear originally, my apologies. I've had a horrible headache today.

Yes, there are horrible people out their willing to claim designs as their own, and some people are quite silly enough to do that with very popular species from films and books (how they think they'll get away with that I don't know), but for the most part, it is not something most artists have to worry about nor lose sleep over. Yes, people can get ripped off, but this does not happen as often as most think. Never meant to come across as mean or anything, just trying to show that, again, it is very possible to copyright your own species (how difficult that is I don't know).

lorenith
03-14-2014, 11:56 PM
Yes to all of that!

The only examples I can think of are more tangible things like the one where Jeff Koons ripped off someones photo and tried to claim it as fair use. (He lost, cause the sculpture he had his little army of fabricators make was basically a recolor turned into a sculpture lol)

On the other side of the spectrum we've got the deal purplekecleon is doing with her flora universe. Where basically all her creations are under one of the creative commons licenses, and anyone can do anything with them so long as they also use the same license in particular.

Fortunately being a lesser artist I don't feel much need to worry about IP related things unless someone accuses me of theft, which has happened to me all of once, for an imagined marowak evolution of all things. (gee who woulda guessed two fakemon based on the same pokemon would have some similarities!)

insanejoker
03-15-2014, 12:06 AM
This, I've been thinking for awhile about how many artists are making fan art of their favourite shows and selling it as buttons, prints, on t-shirts,etc. Isn't that stealing? I mean the fan art work / is your work / , but the content isn't. If I draw my little pony, pokemon or some other famous characters out there, aren't I stealing their profit? Do I have legal permission to sell anything with these characters?

Technically it's not really ok, but I think it falls under parody art (I honestly don't know)? From what I've seen corporations and the like don't care as they're not losing a lot of money in it. However that's if you sell it on your own. Sites like Cafepress absolutely refuse that sort of thing for the legal worries, but some companies do allow use of certain shows as long as it fits within their guidelines, and has use of some images used given to them by cafepress or the company. They have to follow quite a few guidelines for this to be ok. So if you'll be selling through a third party, it can increase risk of trouble. If you work for DC or Marvel, obviously they're not going to get mad because you're drawing a DC or Marvel character for fun.

Personally I don't draw fan art for money, unless it's someone's personal character dressed up as another superhero or game character. That's as far as I'll go. I don't really anticipate Stan Lee bursting through your door and raging because you decided to draw a mini fan comic of Spiderman and sell it at a convention, though. ;>>

Edit: Honestly, I'd fall over laughing in amusement if that ever happened. Then make him pay for my door.

QT Melon
03-15-2014, 12:43 AM
Most of it doesn't fall under parody. It is in fact, illegal. Companies will turn the other cheek because they may feel battling it may end up with more angry fans of their property, or they don't want to draw in more publicity to something like porn of their franchise.

insanejoker
03-15-2014, 02:35 AM
Most of it doesn't fall under parody. It is in fact, illegal. Companies will turn the other cheek because they may feel battling it may end up with more angry fans of their property, or they don't want to draw in more publicity to something like porn of their franchise.

Ah, thanks for the clarification. :)

pomchi
03-15-2014, 04:37 PM
Ah I see, that makes sense. In the end it's kind of a funny situation, basically it's like, I love this show! So I'll sell illegal fan art and steal from the company responsible for creating it kind of thing. X3

Also what are thoughts on pokemon gijinka adoptables? It's a rather popular thing out there now a days. Although the finished design is yours the "theme" itself is copyrighted. So what happens then?

insanejoker
03-15-2014, 05:01 PM
Ah I see, that makes sense. In the end it's kind of a funny situation, basically it's like, I love this show! So I'll sell illegal fan art and steal from the company responsible for creating it kind of thing. X3

Also what are thoughts on pokemon gijinka adoptables? It's a rather popular thing out there now a days. Although the finished design is yours the "theme" itself is copyrighted. So what happens then?

At that point, I honestly do not know. It could still be illegal. What QT said in relation to selling fanart overall, I think it's just a safer bet to assume it's illegal ;>>

QT Melon
03-15-2014, 10:09 PM
If you like to know more about Copyright information, I remember snagging this document from Concept Art a while back that was up for people to read.

Power Point and PDF versions
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1jT0jEQ9abjYTJOOVZleGZ2SlE/edit?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1jT0jEQ9abjajh0WGlZOGlKVms/edit?usp=sharing

Gamedog
03-15-2014, 10:29 PM
I think that the general "rule" of closed species is "don't be a dick" :P It's not impossible to create one anyways, but it's also not impossible to also just come up with your own idea instead of taking someone else's.

insanejoker
03-16-2014, 01:20 AM
If you like to know more about Copyright information, I remember snagging this document from Concept Art a while back that was up for people to read.

Power Point and PDF versions
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1jT0jEQ9abjYTJOOVZleGZ2SlE/edit?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1jT0jEQ9abjajh0WGlZOGlKVms/edit?usp=sharing


Holy crap that's awesome. Thank you!

MkLXIV
03-21-2014, 04:14 PM
Really? I thought the main theme of the people creating these closed species was:

Let's all be Avaricious!
Threatening and Malicious!
Cause screwing people over
is actually quite Delicious.

- - - Updated - - -

I'd be much more comfortable believing that modern copyright laws weren't disgustingly anti-consumer and just plain overkill, but unfortunately that's not the case. :B We have people suing others for making non-commercial works of admiration (fan art) and even attempting to make things better- it's really quite frightening...

QT Melon
03-21-2014, 10:27 PM
Can you demonstrate actual examples of where people are really suing and winning over people committing copyright violations when it comes to the small person doing a closed species in this discussion?

If anything it's major companies shutting down people making fanart, and often times rightly so when they take and make prints and peddle work at conventions or etsy or little online shops. Not some person posting up something on an online gallery unless they feel it damages the brand - like someone posting pornographic material.

Even then, I'm hard pressed to find how it is pro consumer to allow pornographic material (even if the companies just look the other way), especially if the works were not pornographic and more kid friendly.

I'm just wanting to see where these massive lawsuits are coming from, since I have explained the difficulty in suing for copyright infringement already.

MkLXIV
03-22-2014, 01:30 PM
It may be "rightly" by the twisted modern copyright laws in the US, but it's rather wrongly when you take it in an ethical sense. If someone's making maybe a couple hundred dollars (if that) and you're making several hundred million, I fail to see any real damage. Suing someone over fan art is wrong in every sense.

While I can't provide any examples of people suing over closed species as it is a rather early trend, I actually can give a great example of someone making a big lawsuit over fan art. In the mid-1980s (I believe it was in Florida), Disney sued a children's hospital over having Disney characters painted over the wall with a ridiculous claim that it would make it appear the hospital was affiliated with Disney. In reality, it was to make it more comfortable for the children.

And you think it's hard to file a lawsuit over copyright? Funniest thing I've ever heard, as it's easy as sending an email with merely a claim and no evidence (i.e. a DMCA takedown).

QT Melon
03-22-2014, 02:04 PM
You shouldn't be making money off other creative property you didn't create. If you want to make money off your creative property, then...be creative.

Like I said, if you're going to bring in this argument, at least find decent examples where this is really widespread. I've done research over this and cases like you're stating is few and far inbetween due to costs. Companies usually just issue a C&D since it is the much easier of options than suing for damages.

Are you sure you got the story right? Because threatening a lawsuit is not the same as a successful lawsuit? As I said most that companies tend to engage in more commonly is Cease and Desist. This is not the same as suing for damages. It can be for possible damages, but more often than not a company is more satisfied with a C&D unless they really have reason to believe that money is going to be won.

Companies most often sue in copyright for actual piracy, not because you created fanart. With the laws it's heavily weighted in big companies favor.

You need to get your legal terminology correct. A Lawsuit is not the same as a Takedown request. In order for the case to go to trial, most IP lawyers will not go pro bono (ie free) and ask that you pay up front.

MkLXIV
03-22-2014, 02:15 PM
They actually did file the lawsuit, fought the battle, and (unfortunately) won. And what's "creative" under current copyright law is so narrow it's nearly nonexistent. It's gotten to a point where people are coining terms like "copyfascism" and "copyright troll." It's not pretty, in addition to quite sad.

QT Melon
03-22-2014, 02:59 PM
You should be able to find the case file.

I mean you're not giving me any actual proof here, but just generalities, this isn't really helping things.

I know that there are problems with Wikipedia, but at least here is one list of case laws in the US involving infringement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_copyright_case_law#United_States

Where basically the changes in copyright law can overreach the what was intended. Which basically the life of the creator had control of their property before it fell into public domain. Now that companies are global, their interest to was to make it longer reaching.

However, even what I'm telling you is far from the reach of your original premise which was there isn't copyright of species, and now we are running about the Mulberry bush so to speak on various different arguments that you are presenting but not following through on presenting information to inform us. I don't believe this to be fair.

Your Original post I am requoting in case you do edits on the original post from what I am drawing from.


While I'm not quite sure when the whole "closed species" trend started or who started it (even better question- "or why"), I did a little research on if it's actually possible to copyright a fictional species.

The short annswer? No.

But why? Keep reading.

Though many people believe that copyright protects a creative work no matter what the form- this is not the case; if it was, there would be no patents or trademarks. In fact, there are several categories of creative works which copyright does not protect. One such category is ideas. Since a closed species does not take a specific form, it can not be copyrighted. These closed species are only a set of common attributes as ideas which make it identifiable- that means it could be covered under a trademark as it would identify the artist or their services, but not a copyright as it is only an idea and intangible on its own and members of the species have their own unique attributes (thus making a derivative work) which would technically differentiate them from the original definition of the species. Also, a copyright is only applicible to tangible works, making it even more impossible to gain a copyright over a fictional species as the fundamental components of the species are intangible and ideas- neither can be copyrighted.

Please note I am not a lawyer and just a fur with some knowledge about this stuff, but I did choose reliable sources of information.

Sources: LegalZoom and the United States Patent and Trademark Office

The oddest part is that you left out the Copyright.gov office? I would think this would be a major source of research?

I think this post seems to be sour grapes over people and creative properties. I implore you to just take your time and draw more. The more time you put into learning how to create creative work and realize how much study and trial and error is involved, the more you'll understand why people are protective of their success.

lorenith
03-22-2014, 03:05 PM
If they did file a lawsuit it would have been because the hospital refused to remove the characters from its walls, giving Disney little other choice than to protect its own interests. That would have been the hospitals fault, it should have been clear that they would not have won such a lawsuit.

Companies have to protect their IP's they don't want them to get watered down or associated with things that they are not meant to associated with. Like QT said, they almost always send out C&D's or take downs long before they ever file a lawsuit. And even if they do file a lawsuit they're generally quite happy to settle out of court instead of taking it to court. The hospital maybe have even been able to just buy a license to keep those paintings up for cheaper than whatever the lawsuit ended up costing them.

Either way, I'm not inclined to believe you if you can't provide any proof of this thing in the 1980's the only lawsuit I can find involving Disney and a Childrens Hospital on a quick google search is one from 2004 that had to do with some convoluted Royalties issue and had nothing to do with IP law at all.

MkLXIV
03-22-2014, 03:26 PM
I have ideas. I'm not good enough of an artist to realize them. That is why i don't do so quite yet. I have planned out personalities, appearances, and even plotted voices. None of them are yet real. But when they are, I want them to get out there- and that is why I'm not going to confine them to one little spot on the massive Internet.

I tried my best to originally provide information and sources, but no one seems to believe them- and that is why it turned into an argument which I never intended.

QT Melon
03-22-2014, 04:14 PM
I think you should read the book Art & Fear, because you only get better at creating ideas by actually doing the work. Saying you have ideas and not executing them is not doing. Ideas are better in our head, but what counts is when you put them in tangible form. You seem to be afraid of failure and that is the real issue and not your misinformation about copyright law.

It is ok to make mistakes, because that is how you learn. Your ideas will fade in time anyways, so keeping them some close kept secret because it will not turn out as good as you imagine them to be isn't creating.

Legalzoom isn't really lawerly advice. It's really something to help people with form templates so that people ie, document area to get you started. They even make the disclaimer every day in advertisements and on their own website.

Disclaimer: Communications between you and LegalZoom are protected by our Privacy Policy but not by the attorney-client privilege or as work product. LegalZoom provides access to independent attorneys and self-help services at your specific direction. We are not a law firm or a substitute for an attorney or law firm. We cannot provide any kind of advice, explanation, opinion, or recommendation about possible legal rights, remedies, defenses, options, selection of forms or strategies. Your access to the website is subject to our Terms of Use.

To believe in it, it is you that brings us the information, but you again neglected very viable sources like Copyright.Gov. It is very hard to believe if you can't really provide case law.

I can tell you why for example it's wrong to say "Yellow and Blue" make green, but I need to give the person why and show theory and practice.

insanejoker
03-22-2014, 05:26 PM
Legalzoom isn't really lawerly advice. It's really something to help people with form templates so that people ie, document area to get you started. They even make the disclaimer every day in advertisements and on their own website.

Disclaimer: Communications between you and LegalZoom are protected by our Privacy Policy but not by the attorney-client privilege or as work product. LegalZoom provides access to independent attorneys and self-help services at your specific direction. We are not a law firm or a substitute for an attorney or law firm. We cannot provide any kind of advice, explanation, opinion, or recommendation about possible legal rights, remedies, defenses, options, selection of forms or strategies. Your access to the website is subject to our Terms of Use.

To believe in it, it is you that brings us the information, but you again neglected very viable sources like Copyright.Gov. It is very hard to believe if you can't really provide case law.

I can tell you why for example it's wrong to say "Yellow and Blue" make green, but I need to give the person why and show theory and practice.

Glad you pointed out Legalzoom's disclaimer. As a note, most 'law' sites such as Legalzoom are nothing but a third party service. If something bad happens to your copyright process those sites most likely won't protect you and you'll have to shell out more money for an actual lawyer or attorney to help you. You might get some things free (will, contract reviews up to a certain page count) but nothing like just giving you an attorney. You're just paying someone to do the processing for you by going through the copyright / trademark registration on their site. There's another service called Legalshield which is similar, except you can sell the services to people and make a commission off of it. Legalzoom has an affiliate program which is the same. Don't trust those services. The people are not qualified to give you helpful information. https://affiliate.legalzoom.com/

Their Satisfaction Guarentee also states this:
"Please note that we cannot guarantee the results or outcome of your particular procedure. For instance, the government may reject a trademark application for legal reasons beyond the scope of LegalZoom's service. In some cases, a government backlog can lead to long delays before your process is complete. Similarly, LegalZoom does not guarantee the results or outcomes of the services rendered by our legal plan attorneys or attorney-assisted products. Problems like these are beyond our control and are not covered by this guarantee."

QT Melon
03-22-2014, 08:25 PM
The summary of posts is like this.

OP: You cannot copyright a species, I'm not a lawyer but I used Legal Zoom and the Patent Office
Other posts: Actually you can, but it depends on how you do it.
OP: People are taking this off topic and are turning this into a fight
Other posts: We're just countering the statements you made and here are more resources on copyright
OP: *Changing tactics* People are suing everyone and it is stagnating creative work by now allowing people to copy other works
Other posts: Lawsuits are harder because of money, but people do have the right to tell you to stop violating copyright
OP: *Now says takedown notices are lawsuits and cannot bring up case law, but only one instance*
Other posts: I don't think this about copyright and your information is incorrect.

MkLXIV
03-22-2014, 09:06 PM
I don't mean takedown notices are lawsuits, I mean they're more "effective" and probably 12 times easier and make lawsuits less attractive to copyright holders. :B Well, maybe not... After all, I'd say a good 70%-80% of copyright holders either 1) care nothing about anything other than cash, or 2) want to "be the only player in the game," so to say- i.e. don't want anyone else to be successful.

QT Melon
03-22-2014, 09:43 PM
Is there something wrong with making money from your own creative property? Last I recall, no one gave me my art supplies for free, nor anyone else and to create does cost money time and effort. People still have to pay the bills.

A good amount of copyright holders which is essentially everyone who makes a piece (at least in the US you are granted copyright at the moment of its creation) are not making money from it. This argument you are presenting is extremely flawed. Even if they did, so what?

New properties are still coming out despite copyright protection. I honestly don't get what you're saying here?

MkLXIV
03-22-2014, 09:50 PM
"It pays the bills-" I get that all the time. Now I will say this- It's not the only way to pay the bills, and one who owns a copyright shouldn't be a dick and pay the bills at the same time... It's one or the other.

insanejoker
03-22-2014, 10:07 PM
"It pays the bills-" I get that all the time. Now I will say this- It's not the only way to pay the bills, and one who owns a copyright shouldn't be a dick and pay the bills at the same time... It's one or the other.

Now it sounds like you're mad someone made a closed species and then yelled at you for making a character from said closed species, as if they have no right to. I don't understand why it has to be one or the other?

I don't understand why it's such an issue in the first place. You're making a mountain out of a molehill, here.

MkLXIV
03-22-2014, 10:14 PM
I never made a character for a closed species, and I never will.

Nor will I accept closed species as a non-malicious and fair way to make money. Ever.

insanejoker
03-22-2014, 10:19 PM
I never made a character for a closed species, and I never will.

Nor will I accept closed species as a non-malicious and fair way to make money. Ever.

Good. Then it's settled. You are free to do what you want with your art, and same with everyone else within reason. Very informative.

Case closed.


EDIT: QT Melon, can we add the copyright links to the resources thread so it won't be lost among these posts?

QT Melon
03-22-2014, 10:42 PM
Good. Then it's settled. You are free to do what you want with your art, and same with everyone else within reason. Very informative.

Case closed.


EDIT: QT Melon, can we add the copyright links to the resources thread so it won't be lost among these posts?

Sure, I can add them to the resources thread.

Your statements contradict each other



And you think it's hard to file a lawsuit over copyright? Funniest thing I've ever heard, as it's easy as sending an email with merely a claim and no evidence (i.e. a DMCA takedown).


I don't mean takedown notices are lawsuits, I mean they're more "effective" and probably 12 times easier and make lawsuits less attractive to copyright holders. :B Well, maybe not... After all, I'd say a good 70%-80% of copyright holders either 1) care nothing about anything other than cash, or 2) want to "be the only player in the game," so to say- i.e. don't want anyone else to be successful.


Please be more informed when trying to deliver a message to the people.