Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 43
  1. #31
    Premium User QT Melon's Avatar


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

    Quote Originally Posted by MkLXIV View Post
    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.
    Last edited by QT Melon; 03-22-2014 at 03:04 PM.

  2. #32
    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.
    Fish heads! Fish heads! Rolly polly fish heads! Fish heads! Fish heads! Eat them up! Yum!

  3. #33
    Banned MkLXIV's Avatar
    Weasyl
    MkLXIV
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    25
    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.

  4. #34
    Premium User QT Melon's Avatar


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

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by QT Melon View Post
    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."

  6. #36
    Premium User QT Melon's Avatar


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

  7. #37
    Banned MkLXIV's Avatar
    Weasyl
    MkLXIV
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    25
    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.

  8. #38
    Premium User QT Melon's Avatar


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

  9. #39
    Banned MkLXIV's Avatar
    Weasyl
    MkLXIV
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    25
    "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.

  10. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by MkLXIV View Post
    "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.

 

 

Posting Permissions

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