Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 43
  1. #11
    Banned MkLXIV's Avatar
    Weasyl
    MkLXIV
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    25
    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.

  2. #12
    Premium User FishNChips's Avatar

    Weasyl
    N/A
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,052
    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.
    Last edited by FishNChips; 03-14-2014 at 10:24 PM.

  3. #13
    Premium User QT Melon's Avatar


    Weasyl
    QTMelon
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    1,478
    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?
    Last edited by QT Melon; 03-14-2014 at 10:43 PM.

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by QT Melon View Post
    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.
    Fish heads! Fish heads! Rolly polly fish heads! Fish heads! Fish heads! Eat them up! Yum!

  5. #15
    Premium User QT Melon's Avatar


    Weasyl
    QTMelon
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    1,478
    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.

  6. #16
    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).

  7. #17
    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!)
    Fish heads! Fish heads! Rolly polly fish heads! Fish heads! Fish heads! Eat them up! Yum!

  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by pomchi View Post
    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.
    Last edited by insanejoker; 03-15-2014 at 12:09 AM.

  9. #19
    Premium User QT Melon's Avatar


    Weasyl
    QTMelon
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    1,478
    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.

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by QT Melon View Post
    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.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •