Long winded or not, you got me to read the whole thing

Thanks, I don't rant much, I'm more easy going, but it was something I had to get off my chest. Now with that done time to get something on my chest, Anthro Boobs! :) Thanks for reading.

It's ironic, because I spoke with Snapple lawyers (before PepsiCo's Gatorade division bought them up, later to sell them, eventually to become an independent company again) back when I started alt.drinks.snapple (incredibly friendly bunch- Sent me the most recent prospectus at that time as a gift for starting such a positive forum for fans of the drink, such as I!), and the issue of whether photographing Snapple bottles, by themselves or in some other context, was kosher- They said, AS LONG AS IT WASN'T A SCANNED LABEL, they had no problem with it, because it fell under Fair Use.

Now.... As to prurient interests in copyrighted and trademarked material, according to the US Supreme Court, according to the 1994 Campbell v. Acuff-Rose decision, as long as the subject matter's context is legal, both copyright and trademark laws grant the same protections.

However, another matter, and perhaps the BIGGEST myth in fandom: CHARACTERS ARE NOT COPYRIGHTED! You cannot copyright a concept; only a specific work! You CAN trademark a character's name and likeness, but this must be under the context of trademark law, which ONLY APPLIES in an act of commerce. There is no legal protection for characters whatsoever in the context of most fan-created works. So, when those who like to say "caracter copyright ©...", they REALLY mean "character property of...", because the copyright applied is not to the character, but the specific work (which is automatically granted under US and international copyright laws under the Berne Convention on Copyrights, which the US signed onto in the late 1980s), which is owned by the artist (REGARDLESS of that artist's skill!).

BUT.... In fan-to-fan relationships, it's always a good idea to ask permission first- The fan whose character belongs to may not want someone else doing his/her characters...even though there are legal grounds that permit it. Mr. Sanders here, of course, has had a blanket permission to draw my Amy for some years, now- He's a good friend, and while he may not be the best out there (which he readily admits to), I like how he portrays my Amy, and have been very happy with his doodles. :)

As for corporate characters... As long as it's not for commercial purposes, there really is no issue. "Fair Use" does not apply just to parody only, but it is one of several uses specifically mentioned for Fair Use, but (as mentioned in the above Campbell v. Acuff-Rose case) it's not limited to those uses. (The Supreme Court decision, though it is about the use of parody in prurient context, NOT limited to the use of copyrighted samples in rap music, is an excellent tutorial on the nature of Fair Use under US copyright laws. The nature of trademarks, however, also have the same rights and limitations of Fair Use, as both are required to enjoy these rights and limitations under what's allowable in the First Amendment. This was famously covered in the decision issued for the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders v. "Debbie Does Dallas", which ruled in the porn producers' favour for the exact same reasons- In this case, the trademarks involving the cheerleaders' likenesses in the famous porn flick were under EDITORIAL CONTEXT, as it wasn't actually used in a true COMMERCIAL context, that is, it wasn't "Dallas Cowboy Debbie". :) Yeah, it's crazy, but to me, it makes alot of sense. :)

I've been involved in copyright and trademark issues long before my infamous foray into toonsex fiction, which makes me a dangerous sort because I know my rights under the law. :) (I did investigation for my junior high school newspaper on whether or not we could legally use Snoopy, which we could at the time, being it was under editorial context, but didn't. That was in 1978.)

d.m.f.
(Oh, yeah.. Step into a subject I know well.... BOY, did you step into it! :D )

Well said, very well said. I just wish some folks would get a clue. Thanks for the kind words, this issue really got me down.

I, too, wish more people would get a clue, but as you know, education in this country stinks, and there's this myth that ignorance is bliss. It's actually the opposite, as ignorance can lead to indifference, which causes great harm, because it can be taken advantage of.

But then, with an average age in furfandon that's less than half my own age (I'll be 42 in October), I don't think much about the whining of kids who don't know any better.

I meantr what I said about your art that you've done for me. :) I've always considered you a friend all these years, now. :)

d.m.f.

Part of the reason for Fair Use is that it doesn't reduce (the) free (flow of) expression, and to apply limits on what really would be an absurd situation. The clothes, regardless how inconspicuous they may be, are trademarked. If you're photographed, are you violating trademarks? No, even if it's a pic you're using in a commercial context, because it's applied in an editorial context and under Fair Use. Some (like my mother) believe copyrights and trademarks must have blanket enforcement- If that were the case, you would not read a company's name in an article about it, or the business it's in, in a newspaper or magazine. Like I said, it would be absurd.

In the FA context, here, let's take one innocuous example, shall we? There is a photo of a McDonald's sine....in Arabic. Is this a copyright violation? No, because it's a trademark, not a copyright, first off. Then is it a trademark violation? No, because it's not used in any act of commerce- It's just a pic. (See my comment above about my conversations with Snapple lawyers about this.) It's covered under the context of Fair Use. Same goes, accordingly, be it Pampers diapers (REGARDLESS about how you may feel about its usage!) or a can of soda or that design on your T-shirt. There HAS to be a sane limit on what can be protected, even if the taste is questionable. The laws (ESPECIALLY the First Amendment!) are there not to govern over what one thinks is questionable taste, because anybody can object to anything, and if EVERYTHING is banned, you gave nothing.

The ONLY REAL copyright violations you're likely to encounter are unauthorised modifications or outright duplications of someone else's work, and claiming as one's own. Yes, this has happened in the furry community, and such things aren't covered under Fair Use.

d.m.f.