(clarifying: no, i'm not planning on painting closed species without permission from original owner ever)

█ █ █ ↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑ █ █ █

I would think if it's an existing character, it would be okay as long as you ask the character owner? But kind of "designing" one (even if you don't keep it as a character) would be off-limits?

well, that's what i'm curious about. i see it as kind of grey area, probably depends on adoptable creator whether they care or not..? similarly when big movies don't bite your for painting fanarts, which you shouldn't do, it is prohibited, but they let everyone cause its fun, and advertisement for them, and they are not hurting the business?

i mean if i temporarily make a generic closed specie's design, and i'm not making profit, nor keeping profit from the creator, so it in theory doesn't hurt the original creator?

(still no planning on doing, just really debating for fun)

Yeah, it really depends on the original creator in the end because I think some might be stricter than others when it comes to such a scenario.

That's a hard topic to cross I think... I guess, as long as you're not claiming the design and character to be official? I'd respect the creator's wishes and probably not post anything as serious as a ref or something, but nothing is going to stop you from drawing it on your own, and posting such work could be considered fanart. It would probably be best to check with the creator and make sure posting art in relation to the species is okay.

Well *noms food items* You simply call it fan art and give ownership of the piece to the creator. If i was you I'd see is they're the type to get butt hurt about something like fan art. Because some people do, I find it annoying.

hmm, depends why they have a closed species

if it's because they want consistency for the species - ie. they are ALWAYS earthy coloured, and they want to prevent people from making hot pink ones - then i'd say ask first and such? or draw a fanart of someone elses character?

or if it's because they want $$ then idk, there's no real reason why not I think. but i can understand the whole "wanting consistency within a species," thing~

Generally You can do a lot of things but that will be still not nice. :D Closed species are closed for a reason. I guess this is artists' income and can keep track on existing characters.

I think if you design one for fun then dont upload it anywhere because im pretty sure people would find it and criticize it since that species you like is pretty known.

thats very different from this problem. what you are talking about is creating a character without permission, i don't want to do that. this is about a picture depicting a random character of said species, but that character does not belong to anyone

this could be for example, painting your own bought character, but with a village scene of the same species. would you have to own 40 of that species just for that scene?

Hmmm... i still dont think the artist and their fans would be okay with that. :/
Closed species are mysteries for me though. Never really understand it and never really cared. :D Nice but i wouldnt spend bunch of money on it and maybe never use.

no, im not against adoptables before anybody says it to me. xD im happy other artists have income in any way

I think ask the artist. Thats the best option... always. :D

What's a way to put this... esentualy closed species is something that is not legally enforceable, unless they have put a lot of effort into the backstory. And even then the shape and look is not so much protected as the history part. Honestly I find it amusing how often people throw around copyright not even knowing what it is and what it does protect. Copyrights can only protect a spefic item. In the case of art it protects the right of the artist for that specific price of art. A speicise is more of an idea or concept. This is not protected under copyright laws.

Of course though the artists creating closed speicies have little to no legal ground to stand odd. They do have mob type protection (working a group of people into a frenzy and sucking them on the offender)

an owned species is a kind of IP, and if it's definable, it's protectable.
for example, fanarts depicting jedi-s are a copyright infringement against Lucas Arts, and thus really, illegal.
usually no big companies care, why would they. fanarts are fun and harmless. (suing is not unheard of though, not by Lucas Arts though as far as I know)

however i do not think any of them would go as far as suing someone, it would really be the mob protection alive.

Jedi are not protected by copyright laws but trademark ones.

is it? i though trademarks are supposed to protect your brand only, for them is "star wars" and "lucas arts" and their logos maybe?

not 100%, i'm not into trademark territory

looked up, nope, jedies are definitely copy and not trademark

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfiel.....806:ou8v59.2.6

Trademarked according to the regestry of trademarks, what is your source?

your link is not working :')

and this is my source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/trademark

Weird I click it works. well Google serch trademark database. go to the.gov site. on that site look for the search trademarks . than search jedi

That does not say in anyway that Jedi is copy write not trademark. It is a definition.

yes, a definition of the word trademark. it says it cannot be a species or a group of characters, only words and symbols.

http://www.uspto.gov is the trademark website
http://www.copyright.gov/ is the copyright website

When I search Jedi on the copyright site I get specific works, like games movies and card games but nothing about the idea of jedi

it is copyrighted as Intellectual Property of Lucas Arts Ltd. they probably don't list up every prop and ship and race from their movies separately.
Like I wouldnt put it in my Tos you can't use the characters/grass/trees etc. from my paintings, I just say you can't use it at all.

above that, the word "jedi" might be trademarked, but that does not entail a lightsaber-wielding group of celibate monks, that's just the name.

I am not even sure what the first part is trying to say.

As i stated before you could easily make a celibate mind power monk that uses an energy blade and not be infringing anything.

a good way to look at it is a copyright is an object, a patent is a process and a trademark is an idea.

How is a copyright different from a patent or a trademark?

Copyright protects original works of authorship, while a patent protects inventions or discoveries. Ideas and discoveries are not protected by the copyright law, although the way in which they are expressed may be. A trademark protects words, phrases, symbols, or designs identifying the source of the goods or services of one party and distinguishing them from those of others.


this is taken from the us copyright website

I did a search for a few ship types in the copyright site and found them listed, so yes, they payed for a copyright to most if not all. the problem with web searches is that they only list things that were copyrighted after 1978 a lot of their copyrights date back before that, but I am turning up quite a few

It has more to do with the word and it's meaning for the trademark. For example you could easily make a group of people that can use phyicic powers and wield energyblades and that not infringing. But you could never call their powers the force or their weapons lightsabers. That would cause an infringment. These items and such are all part of the brand /idea of the Jedi.

Sorry zit what I am typing is hard to fallow cussing my phone.

that's copyright, not trademark ^^"

They are. The concept and design of the Jedi are original works and as such fall under copyright law. The term "Jedi" itself, is a trademark.

Copyright is automatically gained whenever an "original work" is created. If you design a closed species, the design itself - including shape, colors, features, or whatever else you specify as part of the species' design - IS an original work, and fully protected by copyright.

The emphasis is on originality, so if you can't have copyright to something generic, but to a specific combination, you can.

Ideas, concepts, designs, anything that is an "original work" falls under copyright.

Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:

(1) literary works;

(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;

(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;

(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;

(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;

(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;

(7) sound recordings; and

(8) architectural works.

(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.


Taken from copyright law directly, a species is a concept, concepts are excluded from protection.

oh its section 102 subsections A and B

Of exactly which law of which country?

these are United States copyright

A species that someone DESIGNED is a DESIGN and not an idea/concept. Designs fall under copyright. Period.

See the Berne Convention: http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/tex.....3698#P85_10661

P.s.: When I earlier used the term "concept" I was actually thinking of character design concepts, concept art etc. Those are still artworks/designs.

Article 2 section 1 lists the protected items, designs are not listed. Article 2 section 7 is referring to industrial designs and applied art (quite different things)

A design you make money off = industrial design.

In that case from these articles I have read it needs a patent to be protected.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/in.....design-rights/
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDiction.....ialDesign.aspx
http://www.esa.int/About_Us/Law_at_.....strial_designs
http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/

Also its more simple definition is a pattern or design applied to a product.

This fallowing is an excerpt from the WIPO site
An industrial design constitutes the ornamental or aesthetic aspect of an article. A design may consist of three-dimensional features, such as the shape or surface of an article, or of two-dimensional features, such as patterns, lines or color.

Edit. corrected some punctuation/gamer

Patent... WHAT? That's something completely different.

You just keep getting lost deeper and deeper in confusion.

they are all different yet related. but yes according to most things an industrial design is a type of patent.
industrial design is essentially the look of an object. ie how the iPhone looks would be industrial design.

a profitable design does not always = industrial design. as you stated. but yes searching industrial design often leads to patent stuff.

but yes, if you take anything from my last post pay attention to the WIPO sites description of an industrial design the key words being An industrial design constitutes the ornamental or aesthetic aspect of an article.

I will only state that everything that happens and is created needs a copyright if the owner / creator wish to protect their species / character. As long as the person ei; group does not have a documented copyright signed and paid by and to the lawyer, anyone can pretty much use it for personal non commercial use.

If however you are printing more than a single copy and or are trying to sell said copy, that would be a bold violation of many things that no sane person would really want to get into [its a headache that costs more nerves and cash than deserves].

that is so not true. copyright is your right automatically. you use my artwork, i can sue you, as long as I have proof that is my my own artwork. the only time you need paper is when copyright is transferred, and the content is not property of original creator (like concepts made for a company)

And how exactly can you prove that YOU created it. Watermarks, signatures and some such are fakeable.

Here in Israel, the moment you create something, if you wish for it not to be freely used, you must go to a lawyer and get a copyright on it.

a. having the original artwork
b. having it first uploaded on FA or DA or anywhere
c. having people as witnesses who also say it's yours
d. having a whole gallery of similar type of works, while the thief does not, or just recently got
e. (it's usually obvious)

and Israel is part of the Berne Convention, copyright is automatic for you too.

And still you would have to pay a lawyer in case someone did steal your art.
Nice to see however that you can be both aggressive and take the time to read the wiki page about copyrights.

Thankfully, I've been in a movie making university so I know the process of all of this. Does not however, mean that it is any less painful or annoying in a case in which the art at question is misused. You still need all of the above to prove it, and pay the laywer as I said. A global copyright would cost me a good 200 NIS for a piece I create.

How many of those people who's art is stolen actually go through the lengths of sueing the assaulting party, hmm?
You asked a question, I answered as best I could to fit the situation. Though it is good to see my answer was not welcome and poorly treated.

i only read so far to learn if Israel is part of it, and whats the english translation of the berne thing, i looked up this when my art was stolen and i had to have tumblr take it down for me.
your statement that you have to have a document proving the copyright is not true, what was i supposed to answer?
you can reinforce it with paper, but i want to see you run with every piece you make to pay for it.

"basic" copyright is an automatic right, and it's free.
and you don't have to run to a lawyer straight away, you can file a DMCA for example, that's free, and most of the time works.

Or you can simply be a creative artist and create your own things, rather than copy other people's art. Rudeness goes both ways i'm afraid.

umm... this was all a hypothetichal question. i'm not about to copy, i just questioned the system to find leakage. actually i question everything and everyone constantly, bad habit, sorry.

You don't "get" a copyright from a lawyer. The copyright is automatically created along with the work. The moment you create an "original work" you already have the copyrights and author rights, no further action needed.

They need to pay for a trademark not a copyright.

Unless you mean a regestered copyright.

yes she meant that

A registered copyright, yes. If your piece of work for example is a traditional, just because you physically own the copy doesn't mean its yours. We were taught that we can use the what wiki calls 'poor man's copyright' and send the piece to ourselves via mail to get a date stamp on it. But beyond this, unless you copyright it, anyone can steal it and claim it for their own.

It's problematic here seeing as most pieces are physical. Digital art isn't a common thing around here which is why I partially am concerned but at the same time not. This is also why I started watermarking every commission so no one can be a cheeky bastard and try to claim it for their own, because I have the core files with the creation date. But then again, in case someone does do it, it's going to be a bother. In here, people steal a lot from each other. I see it in every shop I go. People use downloaded material such as Photoshop designs [THAT WERE WATERMARKED] and resell them to customers as their own work. It's a menace...

I'm sorry your country is like that :/

In some countries laws are screwed, my country is not a good one in that regard either. :(

The reselling and stealing happens everywhere, and sadly, according to the DMCA, it is the artist that mas to take the steps in order to enforce his copyright - but this, or the fact that the legal system in some countries isn't working as well as it should doesn't change the fact that the copyright itself is automatic.

Artists in your country should get together and let their voices heard, and fight for proper protection of their rights.

See, this is something I would love to see. But the fact that art isn't viewed as a solid branch of its own, many people, country government included, don't pay it as much attention. Even music copyrighting gets 10000% more attention. Which is sad, and partially a reason as to why I want to move somewhere else. Art is one of the worse things to be doing or having a skill in, in here. It is undervalued and often just laughed at really.

I don't even bother selling anything in real life of what I do because every time I give people my prices they are like "wow, that's what you charge for a drawing?"(even though it is the same minor prices I use online on my commission guides]. As if a drawing doesn't take time and skill to do. People here just go online, google an image, and have it printed. They don't give a damn that it belongs to someone, that someone created it or even has any sort of ownership over it. They just print them, put them in frames and hang them on their walls. It really is annoying. I wish there was a whole law enforcement branch on this. I am sure there is, but it is obviously too minor and insignificant to even make a change.

Sad really...

Art is pretty looked down upon here too. We often get mocked and made fun of by people saying things that we are stupid for trying to make a living from "our hobby", and that making art is "not real work". Same goes for prices, people think an artwork you spent a hundred hours making should cost less than a pair of good shoes... I live in Hungary - you probably heard about us in the news lately regarding our government's new hate campaign against the war refugees...

I came to the same conclusion as you: I want to get the hell out of here as soon as possible.

And until that, we have the advantage that we can ask a fair price over the Internet, and save up.

Yup, that's exactly what I'm doing. Every bit I make I either use for living or save up for when I am able to attempt a move somewhere. So hopefully the both of us will manage a better place and future without having to give up on a life's passion!

Amen. :)

If you would like to draw a Character of that Closed species, you should
ask the Owner of said character if you can draw them. They're in charge of their own character.
You wouldn't be creating a character, you would be doing art for people instead.
I mean, if you ask a character owner if you can draw their character, the
worst response is "No", and the best is "Yes". It's just a matter of asking, yeah?
(Who doesn't like gift art? How XD)


Closed Species statuses are there so that people don't just go and make random
characters of that species. It's kind of like a Population control limiter in a way.
(It ends up being gift art)

agreed, and if i really wanted to do such an artwork, that is what i would do!

i think the entire concept of closed species is stupid so i would say fuck 'em and do it. it's just a way to try to make their species into a status symbol.

it is so you won't steal their original idea they put tremendous work into.

you look at deletethestar's gallery , you will see they 3 put MONTHS of work into working out the details of that specie, lore, appearance, etc.
of course they try to protect it, so random people won't profit from their work for nothing.
Same as you wouldn't let someone use up your drawing or music for their own project without your permission, because it's your idea, your sweat went into it, they have no right to do so.

also, they protect it so the species won't go weird mutants. they hold those creatures dear. You look at sergal's for example. the original species had no bright colored ones. Or 4-armed chakats I seem to be seeing more and more. Open species will be up to the community how they change from the original concept. Closed species stay as the creator wants them to stay.

i respect your opinion but i will continue to disagree with you.