FA+
Shop
Y'know, after all I've learned about IP law.
7 years ago
I can't believe people used to think you could legally protect a closed species. Like, in any sense.
Like, putting up legal threats and being all nasty instead of just saying "hey, be nice and let me own this really fun thing so nobody else can have it but me!" and thinking it would work out somehow.
The requirements to sue have a lot more in common with patent law (which protects the direct execution of a specific idea) than copyright (which protects expressions of ideas) or trademark (which protects origin of service mark, usually per industry).
Patent law could work. But patent law is super specific on WHAT it protects. Patent law encourages a monopoly on a new product so that inventors are encouraged to invent, as they may strike gold! But patent law is specific and usually for 'useful things'. An art design isn't an invention in that sense, so the patent office would probably just throw you out the door. And promptly accept a patent troll's... invention?
Copyright would be hazy as fuck, but in the end I doubt any court would want to set the precedent. It would, to put it bluntly, force the grey area into other products and trust me its going to get really bad, really fast. "Oh, if I just DRAW this random design, I own all adjacent designs" isn't a good copyright precedent to set, I'm sure you can see the slippery slope. Besides that, you can't really copyright natural elements, so if your species is particularly natural, your argument is weak.
This is, of course, besides the fact that copyright protects expressions over the ideas themselves. It's to stop your work from being stolen and resold without recourse, not to stop people from copying your art style and direction (which would be the opposite of what the law is intended to do)
Trademarking could work, but it's far too specific to cover the blanket ban artist monopolies want out of it. A name change and simple art-style switch would circumvent it. After all, trademark is designed to product logos and slogans, not IP at large.
As for common decency? I think that depends on who you're talking to. Some people would find it unfair monopolizing, others feel ideas should be protect to this extent (please don't ever make that law YT and video sites will fucking die), others feel it falls under fair use even if it is copyright, and others still think art is a creative flow not to be hindered by such silly things.
To put it bluntly, the knife cuts both ways, even in an argument that makes the OWNER of the species a jerk! Now that's kinda sad, actually.
So it's political, I guess? Which makes sense. The very idea of owning an idea is somewhat controversial. That, and law generally makes people political. Since law is formed by politics! In the end, you can always claim 'they're mean', but, seriously, are they? Who's meaner, the one who says 'no, you cannot' or the one who says 'yes you can'? Should someone be allowed to monopolize ideas, or should ideas be free?
So in the end.
While it's nice to be nice.
Whatchagondo?
To some people, you're the not nice guy.
Which adds up, since googling this turned up so many results of people being upset over it.
Don't be.
If you want anarchy, all you gotta go is go for it.
Like, putting up legal threats and being all nasty instead of just saying "hey, be nice and let me own this really fun thing so nobody else can have it but me!" and thinking it would work out somehow.
The requirements to sue have a lot more in common with patent law (which protects the direct execution of a specific idea) than copyright (which protects expressions of ideas) or trademark (which protects origin of service mark, usually per industry).
Patent law could work. But patent law is super specific on WHAT it protects. Patent law encourages a monopoly on a new product so that inventors are encouraged to invent, as they may strike gold! But patent law is specific and usually for 'useful things'. An art design isn't an invention in that sense, so the patent office would probably just throw you out the door. And promptly accept a patent troll's... invention?
Copyright would be hazy as fuck, but in the end I doubt any court would want to set the precedent. It would, to put it bluntly, force the grey area into other products and trust me its going to get really bad, really fast. "Oh, if I just DRAW this random design, I own all adjacent designs" isn't a good copyright precedent to set, I'm sure you can see the slippery slope. Besides that, you can't really copyright natural elements, so if your species is particularly natural, your argument is weak.
This is, of course, besides the fact that copyright protects expressions over the ideas themselves. It's to stop your work from being stolen and resold without recourse, not to stop people from copying your art style and direction (which would be the opposite of what the law is intended to do)
Trademarking could work, but it's far too specific to cover the blanket ban artist monopolies want out of it. A name change and simple art-style switch would circumvent it. After all, trademark is designed to product logos and slogans, not IP at large.
As for common decency? I think that depends on who you're talking to. Some people would find it unfair monopolizing, others feel ideas should be protect to this extent (please don't ever make that law YT and video sites will fucking die), others feel it falls under fair use even if it is copyright, and others still think art is a creative flow not to be hindered by such silly things.
To put it bluntly, the knife cuts both ways, even in an argument that makes the OWNER of the species a jerk! Now that's kinda sad, actually.
So it's political, I guess? Which makes sense. The very idea of owning an idea is somewhat controversial. That, and law generally makes people political. Since law is formed by politics! In the end, you can always claim 'they're mean', but, seriously, are they? Who's meaner, the one who says 'no, you cannot' or the one who says 'yes you can'? Should someone be allowed to monopolize ideas, or should ideas be free?
So in the end.
While it's nice to be nice.
Whatchagondo?
To some people, you're the not nice guy.
Which adds up, since googling this turned up so many results of people being upset over it.
Don't be.
If you want anarchy, all you gotta go is go for it.
Usually its just being protective to keep an image (poor sergals), wanting to monopolize or simply 'hey this is a private thing I'm super nervous about sharing it ok'. They don't want credit, they want protection that their baby ain't getting gutpunched by strangers.
But, as we all know, you can't stop fanart n' fiction. Creators inspires creators. C'est le cycle de vie.
However, I am curious about creative commons, so thank you for sending me that way! :O
I remember on Telegram alone people used custom stickers that other people specifically said in their sticker pack that they were just for one person. And people were throwing fits and using them anyway just for spite. They basically said 'if it's on the internet, it must be free'. This ideology REALLY gets under my skin, but that's another rant for another time. I don't see character species designs being treated any differently. Especially if it becomes popular. I've seen so many sergals I didn't even know they were 'closed' until now. ...And that's after purchasing my own reference for one. Oops.
It all depends on the maturity level of the internet. And since it's proven time and time again that it's... not... Then well... THat's why we can't have nice things.
I can see the investment. Just like a GM who just loves gushing about the world he built... personal investment can blind you to the fact that others can freely steal whatever they want for a good part. And then there's the concept of scène à faire...
2. This is not related to this topic because that is actually hijacking intellectual property? Like, a species is a collection of traits, not a proper 'physical' creation (an idea, not an expression). You can totally tell people to buzz off when they steal stickers or make unauthorized avatars of stuff (good luck finding a judge who understands WTF is going on though!)
Sergals are kinda proof it's a fool's errand. Or, at the very least, a horror story of how grizzled fighters get turned into horny sluts, ruining your worldbuilding.
3. Does it? Respecting others and their wishes is definitely a 'right' thing to do. But what if you disagree with the fundamentals of their wish? Feeding sea gulls isn't illegal and probably a nice thing to do for the birds, but if you find the birds annoying and prefer they stop being noisy and picking at your trash, don't you have a reason to protest the behavior?
((hid the old comment because 3. was getting bloated and muddied as heck))
As an interesting aside, Tolkien estate do, in fact, push REALLY hard on "Hobbit" ownership, hence why D&D uses the term Halfling (which apparently is synonymous, but in the dictionary, so no dice). That being said, the Tolkien estate is one of lawsuits and complaints, even if they have no leg to stand on, or so I heard.
However, their claim seems to be entirely limited to the name Hobbit?
Be it Trump, Nazi Punching, Antifa's trash can flipping...
It's clear what side the Internet flows. :<
A bit of an aside question out of curiosity, would there be more of a precedent on the textual/"lore" aspect of an original closed species than for its design? Like, for sergals, I could see it panning out that legally protecting the sergal design is effectively unenforcable, but reference to the Vilous universe could be. Not sure about other textual aspects of original species such as Avali biology, et cetera.
Another side point - the transformativeness defense under US law would go to some pretty strange places regarding furry art. I wouldn't want to see a precedent set, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't pay to watch the legal deliberation in which a lawyer argues art featuring a closed species partaking in a kink that does not factor into the original artist's work provides the public with a benefit not previously available with the original work...
Sorry, the legal nuances of fair use, copyright, trademark etc. fascinate me >.>
I mean, think about; what sets a lore/story apart from... uh... a story? XD
I think it would be in the creator's favor, since, again, you're not copying anything. You're just using something else as a foundation for your own work that is distinct (unless you're super lazy about it). Art style alone can hugely help here. After all, the creative fields would hugely suffer if it was illegal to seek inspiration from other sources.
This all being said, this is mostly US law. EU law sometimes have 'morality clauses' (AKA: "you're a jackass even if its legal" is a grounds for suing). I don't think they'd protect closed species, but one in a million is better than one in a billion. The other person would have to be seriously cramping your style to be liable, mind you. Like, provably stealing 90% of your commissions for being a monopoly kinda liable.
Then again, (at least Dutch) courts would probably take offense to defending monopolies on non-patents (i.e. 'useful ideas').
I guess, theoretically, if slander/libel laws apply to fictional concepts, if someone's turning all your frog-boys gay, you could try to claim they're doing that?
But again, that's not really copyright or IP law, is it? :V