FA+
Shop
Copyright Abuse
12 years ago
I thought I would share this on FA as well.
Ok, the cold hard truth here, If you put something on the internet out to the public, expect it to the inspire others. It just shows they enjoy your work and want to learn from it, that's what being a Idol is about, they idolize you because they want to learn from you and take bits of inspiration from your style and ideas.
"In a recent decision of the Full Federal Court, the Court reaffirmed the fundamental legal principle that copyright does not protect ideas and concepts but only the particular form in which they are expressed.[2] The effect of this principle is that you cannot copyright a style or technique. Copyright only protects you from someone else reproducing one of your actual artworks – not from someone else coming up with their own work in the same style." http://www.artslaw.com.au/articles/.....gement-or-not/
You can become known for doing something a certain way but you can't own it, you can only own the work as a whole. The same go's for characters, if its just similar not the same copyrights don't apply, even more so if its a generic design to began with.
So people stop bother the staff with this nonsense, If you report a stolen "style" or similar not competently the same character, Help staff is not going to Help you , Because nothing was stolen you don't own the "style" and you don't own every Red Doggy with a purple scarf.
Sending your white knights after others inspired by you or like you by coincidence , makes you weak and childish.
Good day
Ok, the cold hard truth here, If you put something on the internet out to the public, expect it to the inspire others. It just shows they enjoy your work and want to learn from it, that's what being a Idol is about, they idolize you because they want to learn from you and take bits of inspiration from your style and ideas.
"In a recent decision of the Full Federal Court, the Court reaffirmed the fundamental legal principle that copyright does not protect ideas and concepts but only the particular form in which they are expressed.[2] The effect of this principle is that you cannot copyright a style or technique. Copyright only protects you from someone else reproducing one of your actual artworks – not from someone else coming up with their own work in the same style." http://www.artslaw.com.au/articles/.....gement-or-not/
You can become known for doing something a certain way but you can't own it, you can only own the work as a whole. The same go's for characters, if its just similar not the same copyrights don't apply, even more so if its a generic design to began with.
So people stop bother the staff with this nonsense, If you report a stolen "style" or similar not competently the same character, Help staff is not going to Help you , Because nothing was stolen you don't own the "style" and you don't own every Red Doggy with a purple scarf.
Sending your white knights after others inspired by you or like you by coincidence , makes you weak and childish.
Good day
To the people doing this, stop being so fanatically redundant and get a life! :D
but I wouldn't argue against the point. So I'm glad to see this spelled out in an official ruling. Sounds good.
This journal is sooooo true.
The court stated:
"Gaiman could not copyright a character described merely as an unexpectedly knowledgeable old wino, that is true; but that is not his claim. He claims to be the joint owner of the copyright on a character that has a specific name and a specific appearance. Cogliostro’s age, obviously phony title (“Count”), what he knows and says, his name, and his faintly Mosaic facial features combine to create a distinctive character. No more is required for a character copyright."
That said, what constitutes actual infringement is complicated legally. Infringement cases can go in the complete opposite direction from what everyone (including highly qualified lawyers) would expect.
So my advice is to relax! Ask people nicely to do things (or not do things), but don't expect 'em to listen. Do what you can to protect your work, but don't lose sleep over it unless someone is making money off of your work, or has convinced massive amounts of people that you are not its original creator.
Copyright is a really tricky thing to go to court on, you need allot of money and a real case worth fighting for, there's also ways around the copyright law like parody. With a parody, you just have to change a few aspects of the character and you can use it how you want, that's how robot chicken and MAD gets around it.
On the topic of fighting copyright issues out in court, I agree. From everything I've read, it's generally a bad idea to fight infringement in court unless the offense is really ridiculously obvious (as in the infringer has directly stolen your artwork and is selling massive amounts of shirts of it or something). There's videos floating around of some pretty fascinating panels that took place at San Diego Comic Con on the subject of copyright. Even copyright lawyers can never tell for certain which way a case will go, and claiming "fair use" is not a fail-proof defense against litigation in all cases.
It's a tricky subject, and I'll never understand the creators that have such a hatred for fan art. There are a few well-known authors that absolutely despise fan art and fan fiction, and it's like....Well, why did you create it and publish it if you didn't want people getting invested in it!? *facepalm*
Idk how long its been sense that guy has looked at the law, but from what I have looked up the law has changed about copyrighted style. Unless its just his different observation on the subject.
I think a copyrighted style would be a horrible idea and honestly can't see it existing anymore. In his case of Calvin and Hobbes saying you can't draw your own character in the so called Calvin and Hobbes "style", because that would be a copyright issue.
Style of drawing something is consider a technique and you can't own a technique, It would be completely ridiculous and cause allot of chaos, since allot of people have similar styles or inspired styles/ ideas.
If you could copyright a style of drawing something Dream works would never of gotten to make "spirit stallion of the cimarron" because Disney had rights to that style of drawing a horse and humans that way.
This video, has scared people and I think fueled the copyright abuse, going on in art sites by small time artist thinking that everything they draw is copyrighted to them, like style, pose, color, aspects and why they send their fans/friends to attack anyone just simply idolizing their work or similar by coincidence.
Unless I were to sell massive amounts of fanart and gain a reputation for it, style-mimickry wouldn't cause too much legal trouble. Small, non-profiting artists aren't worth the big copyright holders' effort. This is why fan art and fan fiction continues to flourish, even though the law technically forbids it (for being a derivative work).
In the end, copyright law is just impossible to navigate, it doesn't solve either sides' problems, and nobody should bother trying to use the law to defend their work unless they are a well-known commercial success with money to burn. :/
I try to tell them that their brand-new character is NOT copyrighted (or copyrightable) because there is no legal weight behind it (e.g., no developed world, backstory, merchandise, development, brand recognition, etc). You have no idea of the tears of joy I am weeping right now that there is another human being on this planet who actually knows the TRUTH of copyright and that Generic Furry Character A isn't instantly copyrighted the second that an artist slaps it down on paper (especially if it's just, say, a blue dog or a fox or something - as you stated, a stock archetype).
I try to tell people, your ARTWORK of your character is copyrighted, of course, but that blue husky with the rainbow tail and red eyes isn't copyrighted as a "design". I could make a blue husky with a rainbow tail and red eyes, and you couldn't sue me for "copyright infringement" (or "kill" me) UNLESS your character has some kind of development/legal weight behind it - or some kind of brand recognition, like Mickey Mouse or a Pokemon.
Sorry to go off on stuff you already know, but I just seriously am so happy to know that there is someone else out there who understands and who isn't going to call me names and insult me for daring to tell them that their character (or generic made-up "closed species") isn't copyrighted.
I know very well that my character Lakota isn't copyrighted - but if I made a huge brand out of her, slapped her on all kinds of merchandise, made a whole backstory, a webcomic, a book series, and all kinds of stuff around her, and made her instantly recognizable as "that yellow and black wolf", I might have a very good argument for getting her legally copyrighted (and trademarked) as a character/design ;}
I've asked artists who claim that they have "copyrights" on their characters or species how they went about GETTING those copyrights, and of course I've never gotten an explanation XD I've gotten blocked quite a few times, though! Very mysterious, I say :O
wow
furries
such scary
best lawyers
so serious
wow
I guess it just makes me sad when I see "DON'T STEAL!!!!!" on peoples' artwork. Most of the time they're characters I wouldn't WANT to steal, but, you know XD
I was most recently chewed out/insulted/accused of lying by someone who has a "copyrighted" character who is a super-generic skunk. Yep, you've copyrighted skunks, you certainly have! Good for you. (They also claim that by viewing their FA profile, they're somehow allowing you to use their character under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. I do not think that means what they think that means.)
Then again, I look back on my own stuff from the 90s/early 2000s, before I knew any better, and I used to put that kind of stuff on there too XD (Lakota is copyright ME!) So I'd like to say it's pure ignorance, but there's a whole internet of actual truth and knowledge out there, so there's really no excuse, especially when someone else tries to gently tell you the truth and then you respond with, apparently, "I will kill you" XD
sigh XD
I find it hard to just create poses unless it looks weird and abstract.
You can't copyright a pose and people still try to do that.
I like it when people reference my art. I love when they reference things that I create. It makes me feel like I'm helping someone indirectly. It makes me feel good that my art looks good enough for someone to want to reference it.
In fact, I encourage the reference of my art. Just helps them improve on things.
No one should get angry that someone likes their art.
Then there's no point in posting your art at all.
I've spoken with a copyright specialist lawyer before (furry artists love to laugh at me and call me a liar for this too, but amazingly, if you email a lawyer, sometimes they will actually ANSWER SIMPLE QUESTIONS FOR FREE) and I was told that, to put it simply, you cannot just "copyright" a character or species that you JUST made up, especially if it's fairly generic (e.g., a very canine-like creature with horns, or something that mostly looks like a dragon, or a character that is a yellow wolf with black markings, haha).
It's only large companies or famous artists or authors who have DEVELOPED their characters and species who can COPYRIGHT their designs, like Nintendo with Pokemon, Anne McCaffrey with her Pernese Dragons, Disney with Mickey Mouse, etc. They have made their characters recognizable, with legal weight behind them (merchandise and proof of profit, mostly).
So, I'm really happy you posted this and I'm REALLY happy to know there are other artists out there who know and actually BELIEVE the truth about copyright <3 Thank you!
Sadly, I know that most artists will either ignore it, disbelieve it, or will simply go "NO I COPYRIGHT MY CHARACTER/SPECIES ANYWAY AND IF YOU STEAL IT I WILL KILL YOU" :/
(Though this is really the first time I've been able to fully hear anything about this, so hearing it does finally make sense to me.)
Thanks for sharing this. <3
Lovely post, informative and well written.
Wish there was a fav button for journals!!
But i can understand how they'd feel. Just sometimes makes me wonder if they'd know that a character they created may have inspired others to create a similar character. Not always plagiarism.
I've seen tons of characters made from inspiration. But still i can understand the pblem
I know the two artists Ash is referring too. But if they continue attacking You and sending their friends after You just seems really pointless after awhile. Why can't most artists not all artists mind You just understand that maybe You inspired others to make a character?
i hate when people say "this is my style" or "such and such is copying my style" it irks me
I am laughing so much right now, yeah sue every pic with standing characters or sue all pictures with walking characters
If Disney had copyrighted characters, you wouldn't see everyone with a balto or lion king'ish character anymore.