I'm pretty sure that drawings of copyrighted characters are okay as long as one doesn't seek to profit from them. Commissioning an image of one is okay, but selling a CD or the actual physical copy to someone is quite illegal.

Maybe okay, but not legal. There's nothing about profit in the copyright laws. :p

Hmm, you're right. A quick re-reading of everything seems to make this pretty much fine. Drawing someone else's character and selling it without their permission.

Well, commissioning a pic is still profit making from copyrighted material - hence, this is why i stoped doing such things few years ago :o

drawings of copyrighted characters are okay as long as one doesn't seek to profit from them

1.) You can't copyright a character - you can copyright the expression of a character, though (such as an image). You can trademark a specific character, but that's a whole other intellectual property area that covers different aspects than copyright.
2.) A creative work containing a character based on a copyrighted work is a "derivative work"; without permission from the copyright holder to create such a work, it is technically illegal (though most companies won't go after people who are just doing it for the sake of fandom, and some instances of derivative fan works may be protected under parody clauses in copyright law, depending on where you live and how your laws in this area are written).

Yeah I just re-read everything. I just woke up. x_x Thanks for posting this.

However, the model/design for a cartoon character constitutes a copyrightable element. Not on the "I own all blue foxes" level, but a specific recognizable design, regardless of the pose it's drawn in. Oddly enough, that doesn't hold true for a trademark - a single pose of a cartoon character can be trademarked, but the design of the character cannot.

Hence, Mickey Mouse is copyrighted to Disney, but only specific images of Mickey used in some of their logos are trademarked.

IMO it should be the other way around though. A company using a cartoon character as a mascot should be able to trademark that character's design to prevent other people from using it in any way that might imply their endorsement, so long as it remains a symbol of that company, but copyright on individual works produced with that character should expire earlier. But eh, I'm a long long ways from influencing national or international copyright and trademark policy. :p

The thing i was pointing out is that sum artist use the fame of sum characters (Like Renamon and Krystal) and make a buck with it...its just wrong in my eyes - an art without any profit interest is ok, but doing artwork of copyrighted characters, slaping an own "Dont redistribute" tag underneath and sell it? Thats just wrong =P

Yeah, it's kinda....missing the point. "I'm copying you but you totally can't copy my copy! ITS MINE"

I agree with you on that last point. And thank you for clarifying the points I tried to express.

Aye, tis true ;3 Good Comment there, geezer ;D

The person who you are copying has to give you explicit written confirmation that you can use their intellectual property and how it is going to be used for it to be 'legal'

There is fair use laws regarding parody and the press that allow you to either use the likeness or the property itself in order to satisfy these conditions.

However it is up to the copyright holder to respond to any infractions and the person can be taken to civil court only as it is not considered a criminal matter. That person would have to be able to prove that they are the original creator of such material and they would only be able to sue for damages/loss of earnings based off of the material that was stolen.

In Canada, the material becomes public domain after 50 years when the material was originally published. This is different in the US however due to copyright reform and they have changed it to 75 years after the death of the creator.

I'm not a lawyer but this is pretty much what I understand of how this works. Most laws like this also work on precedence, so previous rulings in court cases become the unwritten law. If you really want to know what is allowed and what isn't you would have to find a lawyer that can study the back history of court cases for you.

I know what ya mean...but im not interested to do such work at all, im just interested how those people allow themselves to make money from other peoples intelectual property? Like if sumone would rent out a room from your apartment and earned money that way, not asking ya if ya want it or not, let alone give ya anything from the profit ;3

It's easier then making up your own stuff and then getting it to be popular enough so that it sells. Way easier to use someones work who's done that already.

I know in Japan this is a common practice and is actually not frowned upon. Most Manga artists get their start doing fan comics which gets them known before they start doing their own stuff.

I know that I am guilty of this a little bit as I have sold fan art at conventions and people buy it. This is not something that was really bad or immoral as this is something that is generally encouraged because it is known to help create the community and encourage more people to enter into the market. The larger the community, the more there are people talking or enjoying your property. It creates the viral conditions to help make their property more successful.

That being said, there is something about the fan made work that makes the 'official' products more appealing and of coarse sell for more. They tend to make more money off of their merchandise then if they eliminated the grey market.

I do dissagree with people using the original works, copying them, and then selling them. That is a whole different ball park all together as that jumps into black market.

Well, some of the most successful Furry artists profit from Digimon art. On top of that, they don't show signs of stopping. So, illegal or not the companies either don't care or have no control. Same thing for anyone who has a unique character, really. Most people can do is just give threatening letters or hope the artist is banned from most websites.

S'how I see it. Copyright is as much an advantage as it is just a source of drama. Like KageMoonites said, hypocrites. Hypocrites everywhere.

As i stated above, im just sick of seeing people earning their money by the fame generated by other peoples intelectual properties. People bitching about copyright on their own work are silly...i never put such sentence under my work and i never had problem with "art theft" - most people with such fright are just bunch of drama whores (I mean, putting an dont steal tag under a sonic "OC"....c'mon :P)

I hear you, man. I completely agree. Some people just have the skill and no imagination, such is the way life can be. c-c

kinda reminds me of that jean simmons incident......

ROFL.

I agree with this.

Oh, do tell :3 Havent heard of dat one, to be honest

this whole spiel about Gene's son plaigerising manga artwork i believe.

leeeets seeee....

http://community.livejournal.com/bl.....ss/446299.html

^read this

Furrys.. all you gotta think is, furrys.