So, I was just thinkin'...

So far as I know, the furry community is the <strike>ONLY one</strike> other than Scientology, that regularly gets pissy about interlectual property (copyright/trademark etc.)

Mostly it's people freaking out when they discover they're not a beautiful and unique snowflake in a shitstorm. Now, regardless as to weither any of these claims have any weight to them, has anyone EVER tried to sue over the arguement? Because I'm trying to imagine some 16 year old girl talking to an attorney about how darkcloud666 stole her sonic the hedgehog fan character. Would ANYONE take this shit seriously?

Let's settle the score here. When you invent a fictional character (and let's, for arguement's sake say it isn't a particularly distinct one) to what extent is it legally 'protected'? and more importantly, would any courtroom really give a shit?

Oh, and also, what's all this about copyright/trademark? Don't you have to be trading something for an image to be a trademark?

Thanks!

I fail to see the relation with e621.
This kind of drama starter would belong on FA or lulz, not here. We're barely a community of artists or character designers...

Both darkcloud666 and 16 year old girl don't give a shit how complex it is. I don't know too, though

All this trademark shit is unrelated because it is only applied to something non-representable, like character name

I believe it's enough to copyright image with a character/reference sheet and keep in mind that all works with your character must have a liscence. I think it shall solve all problems.

Copyright is a form of protection grounded in the U.S. Constitution and granted by law for original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Copyright covers both published and unpublished works.

Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed.

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.

Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work.

From http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#what

Also,

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

From: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html

If my understanding of copywrite law is correct...

If Original the Character was stolen, the person has no case unless Original the Character was being used to create profit. Otherwise no damages have been caused. All lawsuits require the damages to be specifically defined, or there is no case.

TL;DR: You cannot sue someone at court unless you can prove that there was a financial loss.

Considering Original the Character, is by definition unoriginal and uninspired, it is improbable that anyone would take it and manage to generate profit from it. And thus such a lawsuit would hold no merit.

EDIT: In theory, you could potentially file a lawsuit based on lost ad revenue. However it likely is too little money to be a viable suit. A loss of $1 to $2 in revenue a month would never get looked at in court.

Kald said:
I fail to see the relation with e621.
This kind of drama starter would belong on FA or lulz, not here. We're barely a community of artists or character designers...

However, there are enough artists and designers - probably somewhere in the lowballed vicinity of 800-1200 of our 12,000 user accounts - that information like this can be relevant to their interests. Plus, it's furry. Screaming about copyrights and trademarks comes up every 10 seconds anywqays - better to do it in a clinical, factual manner.

Marbles, I believe that lawsuits may serve different purposes, i.e. take down published derivative work if you prohibited making derivative works even if no financial damage was caused, etc.

I remember there was a small comic here on E6 that explained the differences between copyright and trademark with an artist emitting legal threats over a sonic recolor but can't quite seem to find it.

Jazz, I'm almost 100% certain that you cannot.

The only way you can do that really is by arguing the ad revenue route. And even then they'll claim Fair Use. You have to prove that they are causing you a loss of revenue through their usage. Even if it is a fairly insignificant loss of revenue.

However, it is a perfectly viable route to take if you want. It WILL cost you money. As small as $15 (at least where I live), but it could be a lot more expensive. But if you want to you still push a case that you wouldn't expect to make any money off of just to have the stuff ordered taken down.

BUT EVEN THEN! There is a good chance that the person you are suing is in a different state or country. So you can add more complications and expenses in the form of trying to have the person served, getting both of you to show up in court, and getting the judgement enforced.

All in all it's a pretty futile effort, unless you are talking major damages. Ya know. If let's say Disney used a character that looked remarkably like (let's say) ZigZag in a future movie, then Mr Earle can argue that Disney owes him millions (possibly billions) of dollars in revenue for the use of the character.

Of course, that is almost certain to never happen, but it's still a hypothetical situation.

But I'm no lawyer, so what do I know?

EDIT:

TL;DR Version: As far as I understand, copywrite violations deal exclusively with the "misdirection of revenue", and nothing else. Plagiarism without a loss of revenue is not a copywrite violation. A properly cited source with a loss of revenue is still a copywrite violation, even if it isn't plagiarism.

Plagiarism and copywrite violations are similar, but still distinctly different subjects. And it helps if you keep them separated in your mind.

Well, copyleft liscences are not directly related with revenue and they still sometimes work in courts

Although I believe that it will be almost impossible to win in court when it's all about minor case

for you to sue anyone you would need to have had said person or character patented other wise you couldn't do shit...unless your really really rich or really really popular because if you have one of those people will forget how painfully retarded your argument is and side with you.

EinTheCorgi said:
for you to sue anyone you would need to have had said person or character patented other wise you couldn't do shit...unless your really really rich or really really popular because if you have one of those people will forget how painfully retarded your argument is and side with you.

Did any of you read my post? No wonder the perception of copyright is so fucked up in the fandom. It's like you guys see the word "copyright" and go into ignore mode.

Look, "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."

You cannot patent a character, but you can control their use and likeness; this is what copyright is for. Under US Code Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 106 the owner has the right to display, reproduce, and create derivative works. Section 106A contains rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity.

Both can be found here: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sup_01_17_10_1.html

Please note that I am not a lawyer nor affiliated with any. The following is how I interpret copyright law without using lawyerese and may be off. Please refer to Deadjackal's posts for more information.

In short, copyright automatically protects all artwork (from pictures to writing) unless it's specifically released as public domain and, to certain degrees, under a Creative Commons License. Public posting doesn't equal public domain. Yes, a toddler's scribble on the fridge is as much subject to copyright as Tsampikos' work.

A copyright holder need not take a violator to court, but can simply issue a "cease and desist" themselves or via lawyer to the guilty party. They can also register a copyright to have a better base for legal action, but this isn't necessary. The image doesn't need to be used for profit for legal action to be taken.

Concerning e621, it's about choosing one's battles. The majority of artists don't care because it's more trouble than it's worth for them, and they're credited anyway, so leaving well enough alone benefits everyone. As e621's administrators willingly remove any pictures (even without a cease and desist) a copyright holder asks them to, there's no real problem beyond souring our opinion on the uncooperative copyright holder.

I believe the main problem is when people ask to remove comission with their character "because they paid for that"

Jazz said:
I believe the main problem is when people ask to remove comission with their character "because they paid for that"

Yeah, apparently this is another point where companies and corporations have more rights than people.

- If an artist does one or more commissioned pieces for a company, the company owns them, copyright and all. It is considered that the artist was providing 'work for hire' as (temporarily or not) an employee of the company, thus automatically transferring all rights to the company, permanently.
- If an artist does one or more commissioned pieces for an individual, the artist is considered to be selling the original / print / high-res version to them, whereas the original art itself is considered to belong to the artist, rights included.

acct0283476 said:
- If an artist does one or more commissioned pieces for a company, the company owns them, copyright and all. It is considered that the artist was providing 'work for hire' as (temporarily or not) an employee of the company, thus automatically transferring all rights to the company, permanently.

Not automatically. Contractually. The reason the company appears to have more rights in this case is because the company has the artist sign a contract in which the artist surrenders all rights to the work product. It's a very standard clause, so much so that most artists can't avoid it. I'm sure that even Joe Madureira has to give up the rights to some of his works, but he'd be an example of a sufficiently in-demand artist that he might be able to negotiate his way into keeping certain rights from his works.

If you work in a creative industry, I'd suggest you re-read your employment contract. Heck, I'd suggest you re-read your employment contract anyways.

Part of the reason such contracts exist is because the company is doing "all the hard work" for you.

There's nothing stopping you from promoting and releasing your own art. However, the act is often difficult, or nearly impossible to do on your own, and requires the assistance of a person with business knowledge, as well as the backing of many employees.

Giving your rights to someone else is a non-monetary price that you pay for the huge number of services the company is providing for you.

Precisely. But if I'd said it all in a single post, it'd be TL;DR.

A “work made for hire” is—

(1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or

(2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. For the purpose of the foregoing sentence, a “supplementary work” is a work prepared for publication as a secondary adjunct to a work by another author for the purpose of introducing, concluding, illustrating, explaining, revising, commenting upon, or assisting in the use of the other work, such as forewords, afterwords, pictorial illustrations, maps, charts, tables, editorial notes, musical arrangements, answer material for tests, bibliographies, appendixes, and indexes, and an “instructional text” is a literary, pictorial, or graphic work prepared for publication and with the purpose of use in systematic instructional activities.

I'm certain a 'work made for hire' has some rights such as a right to make derivations and redistribution, but I haven't read that far into those statutes yet. Title 17 Chapter 2 Section 201 does contain this info however:

(b) Works Made for Hire.— In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright.

(c) Contributions to Collective Works.— Copyright in each separate contribution to a collective work is distinct from copyright in the collective work as a whole, and vests initially in the author of the contribution. In the absence of an express transfer of the copyright or of any rights under it, the owner of copyright in the collective work is presumed to have acquired only the privilege of reproducing and distributing the contribution as part of that particular collective work, any revision of that collective work, and any later collective work in the same series.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000101----000-.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000201----000-.html

Sounds about right.

deadjackal said:
A “work made for hire” is—

(1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or

(2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work [...] if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire.

The interesting tidbit I didn't know was:

deadjackal said:
(c) Contributions to Collective Works.— Copyright in each separate contribution to a collective work is distinct from copyright in the collective work as a whole, and vests initially in the author of the contribution.

Don't get me wrong, though, I have every expectation that if I were to re-read my own employment contract, that would be covered and I'd still own nothing of what I've done for the company I work for.

However, it sounds like if I were to do a commission for a random member of FA, as the author I would retain copyright over the work, because there would be no written contract or express employment. It would depend on the exact legal definition of employment, but I'd imagine that if money doesn't exchange hands until the work is completed, then it's not employment anymore than it's employment to buy a 2-liter of Coke from the local gas station or convenience store - again, unless a contract is involved. Contract law is just as hairy as law about anything else, but I don't think a vanilla, casual commission from FA would qualify.

Was that TL;DR? Legal issues are complicated.

ikdind said:
Sounds about right.

The interesting tidbit I didn't know was:
Don't get me wrong, though, I have every expectation that if I were to re-read my own employment contract, that would be covered and I'd still own nothing of what I've done for the company I work for.

However, it sounds like if I were to do a commission for a random member of FA, as the author I would retain copyright over the work, because there would be no written contract or express employment. It would depend on the exact legal definition of employment, but I'd imagine that if money doesn't exchange hands until the work is completed, then it's not employment anymore than it's employment to buy a 2-liter of Coke from the local gas station or convenience store - again, unless a contract is involved. Contract law is just as hairy as law about anything else, but I don't think a vanilla, casual commission from FA would qualify.

Was that TL;DR? Legal issues are complicated.

I suppose a person could draft up a contract and have all involved parties agree to it if they were so inclined. Commissions over FA or another art site seem pretty informal though. I don't know how binding they would be, and it always appears that the artist retains their copyright over the work, which is perfectly okay to do, unless they expressly sell the right or transfer the ownership in some other way.

Restricting somebodies ability to post a piece they commissioned from you seems rather silly however. Or posting general works in a public gallery and asking people not to distribute is kind of silly as well. Infringement or not, people will redistribute... why fight it? Find a way to work with it.

Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails came to terms with the idea that people would download his work. What did he do? He made it more accessible. "You want my music? Here, I'll provide the unmixed recorded tracks and loops. Have fun!" Furthermore, he refined the concept of pay your own price when he released 'Ghosts' and it was an overwhelming success for him.

Saul Williams explored the concept as well and while he wasn't as successful, allowing people to download his work for free (or for a few bucks if one so chose) got him exposure that he may otherwise not have had.

As an artist, the last thing I want to do is restrict my exposure. That is why I've attributed all of my works with a Creative Commons license. I want people to know it's okay to distribute (non profit of course), save, and to certain extents modify my work. All I really require is a link back to my FA gallery as a source.

I'm a big proponent of limited non profit distribution of works with the intent of increasing awareness of artists, especially the lesser know ones. It would be really awesome if more artists would re-evaluate their views on the subject and see the benefits of being more open with their work. Dunno if it would ever happen, but it's a 'nice to have' sort of thing.

ikdind said:
However, it sounds like if I were to do a commission for a random member of FA, as the author I would retain copyright over the work, because there would be no written contract or express employment.

This was the stance I had always believed. Unless there was, in writing, a statement saying the image copywrite belonged to the commissioner, it otherwise belongs to the artist.

This is why e621 always tells commissioners "Go get the artist to come here and ask for the image removed."

Marbles said:
This was the stance I had always believed. Unless there was, in writing, a statement saying the image copywrite belonged to the commissioner, it otherwise belongs to the artist.

This is why e621 always tells commissioners "Go get the artist to come here and ask for the image removed."

This is precisely why we do this - requiring the legal copyright holder themselves make the request not only protects our ass legally, it protects theirs as well. Note that we have, on occasion, deleted images as requested by the commissioner because yes, they do have a formal contractual statement by the artist transferring all ownership and rights. But such situations are very rare, for reasons stated right in this thread - furry art is, after all, a largely informal affair.

Of course, most people are generally ignorant of copyright laws or have some weird views of how they apply, which is more an unfortunate general failing than any kind of willful ignorance. Saly, I find in many of these cases, trying to explain this to them always falls on deaf ears. :(

Generally, the interpretation from the more overreactionary crowds seems to be either 'copyright applies to whoever screams the loudest' or, alternately, 'this isn't what random internet people told me, so you're obviously pulling some kind of weird scheme/trick' (to what end purpose, I will never know).

A few LJ groups in particular are really, really bad about this - many of the 'protecting artist' type groups are actually amoung the worst - giving out blatantly incorrect or even damaging 'legal' information at best, and outright calling for vandalism, blackmail, and harassment at people who are correctly following copyright law, often without the knowledge of, or contact of, the party they feel has grieved them in the first place. Often, the view in those places is less that it's a dialog between two reasonable people who want a mutually beneficial conclusion, and more that it's some sort of righteous, fevered battle to be 'won' by any means necessary, even if it means resorting to criminal actions themselves, where they must strike screaming right out of the gate rather than just...talking. Ah well, as has been said to me before, 'you can't cure stupid'.

<em>Well I'm glad you all on here know so much about law. That can come in real handy if something should happen.</em>

what

WolfieWolfie1992 said:
<snip />

It's cost-prohibitive to retain the assistance of a professional attorney for every possible situation one may find themselves in. Failing that, we can always read the laws on the books, such as what deadjackal cited earlier, and make our best attempt to understand and respect them as they apply to the territories we live and work in.

Also, I'm noticing a trend in your replies on this and other threads, Wolf. Please reconsider the tone of your posts in the future, especially when your reply is right below that of a mod. Thanks.

mellis said:
what

<em>It 'twas a compliment. =^_^=
I said it's good that you guys on here know so much about all the copyright laws and whatknot, that if someone tried to file lawsuits on this site down the road or something along those lines for whatever reason, that you guys would be ready to fight it. </em>

ikdind said:
Also, I'm noticing a trend in your replies on this and other threads, Wolf. Please reconsider the tone of your posts in the future, especially when your reply is right below that of a mod. Thanks.

<em>Ah, I see what happened....
That statement read across to you guys as in insult.
I did not intend it to be when I typed it. Sorry. See my above post.</em>

deadjackal said:
Did any of you read my post? No wonder the perception of copyright is so fucked up in the fandom. It's like you guys see the word "copyright" and go into ignore mode.

Look, "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."

You cannot patent a character, but you can control their use and likeness; this is what copyright is for. Under US Code Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 106 the owner has the right to display, reproduce, and create derivative works. Section 106A contains rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity.

Both can be found here: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sup_01_17_10_1.html

sorry chose the wrong word copyright is what I meant sorry about that.