Confused about the copyright issue.

Technically...you're right Crissy. But where do you draw the line between copyright vio. and fan art? Much harder question to answer...

I dunno, but i think that as long as you don't claim the image as your own, like you created it, most images can be considered somewhere in the public domain. I made two bootscreens, both with images of popular individuals. I personally don't feel as though I breeched any copyright, i only promoted my view as a fan of both individuals. Also I don't think that the owners of the copyrights would appreciate all creators of the skins on this site calling and asking for permission to use their copyrighted images.

ripped skins and images being excluded

[Message Edited]

US copyright interpretations/inclusions allow for 'fair-use' which is the apparent justification for 'fan-art' as it's called.

This is not the case in Australia, for example, where 'fair-use' does not apply, but Wincustomize.com [as is the case with most similar sites] is hosted in the US so theirs is the accepted protocol.

What still clouds the issue is the concept that someone could 'borrow' from another well-known/famous skinner's work and claim justification likewise as 'fair use' or 'fan art'....but that's where the line is drawn...[at least]... 

Travis......if it is ever possible, one MUST contact the copyright holder and to heck with their 'appreciation'.

If they're annoyed at the intrusion then most likely you won't be getting the required permission...

hmmm.......

3 by Admin Jafo - 11/15/2003 10:09:03 PM US copyright interpretations/inclusions allow for 'fair-use' which is the apparent justification for 'fan-art' as it's called.but Wincustomize.com [as is the case with most similar sites] is hosted in the US so theirs is the accepted protocol.

4 by Admin Jafo - 11/15/2003 10:11:31 PM Travis......if it is ever possible, one MUST contact the copyright holder and to heck with their 'appreciation'.If they're annoyed at the intrusion then most likely you won't be getting the required permission.

WOW! Now I'm doubley confused

WOW! Now I'm doubley confused

     Care to join the club?

maybe they should put a statement like "all images are copyright of their respected owners" or something like that

Travis Thompson
Why aren't you in bed with a hot tadi and vicks vapor rub?

I woke up at 4 pm...not a very good schedule for a sick guy, but I live in a dorm and my bed is next to my desk.

Um, thanks for your concern, i think

cough, cough, snifffffff, uggggggh

Just joking with you Travis. I read on another post that you said you had a cold

yeah i guessed that

aaaachooo

Any aspect of the law in the US or elsewhere can get very complicated and this is no exception. If you're really interested in what the US law is and the fair use doctrine, here is a fairly good plain language presentation from the US Copyright Office: http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ1.html

Having said that, IMO, I agree that you should make every effort to contact the holder of the copyright when using a trademark or copyrighted image. From a practical standpoint, I wouldn't let that stop me or worry me overmuch in most cases of skin art. The real reason people are sued for copyright or trademark violation is when:

A) You profit or attempt to profit by selling goods which use the copyrighted image or trademark without consent of the holder of the rights.

You use the copyrighted or trademarked image in such a way as to state or imply an association with or endorsement by the holder of the rights which does not exist. Profit or attempt to profit is not a necessary component of this offense.

C) You use the copyrighted or trademarked image in such a way as to reflect discredit on the holder of the rights or in a manner which would damage the reputation, image, or marketability of products for sale by merchants using the image with the permission or license of the holder of the rights.

I'll grant anyone who wishes to argue the point that these are not the only reasons why you may be sued or the only possible violations of US law in this area. But for all practical purposes, these are the main areas in which actual damages can be assessed (money calculated) and that's the main reason you get sued. Beyond that the worst that will normally happen is being ordered to remove it from public display.

I hope this helps clear things up a little.

#1 by Sir Hus - 11/15/2003 9:28:37 PM Technically...you're right Crissy. But where do you draw the line between copyright vio. and fan art? Much harder question to answer...

you got that right!

I am still trying to figure out what to take out of my Deviant Art account

http://joetheblow.deviantart.com

There is really no logic to WC's system. It is pretty easy to find pop culture stuff that is publicly forbidden by the owners. Almost every piece of software you get forbids the alteration and redistribution of their icons, and yet you can 'Aqua' them up and upload them here with no hindrance. The question here seems to be "Do they really *mean* it?"

I respect the whole crew, but copyright/trademark moderation is completely arbitrary. It depends on who is moderating at the time, which section, and who the uploader is. The last time I tried to do anything about it I stormed off never to return... Funny, that. Anyway, I'm over it. My pride is tempered by my sad need to associate.

The copyright/trademark owners seem to tolerate 'fan-art' they perceive to be good for them. They want their brand visible and at the same time don't want anyone to benefit from it. If you are really concerned with something, my suggestion would be to email the folks here, and if nothing happens email the trademark/copyright owner. I think you'll find that you are the only one that cares 99.9% of the time. The recurrent curse of threads like this is punishment enough, I guess.

Explanations that make sense won't be forthcoming at WC. I can vouch for those who opt to bear a torch, 'tolerate it or leave' is, sadly, the only option.



[Message Edited]

The copyright/trademark owners seem to tolerate 'fan-art' they perceive to be good for them. They want their brand visible and at the same time don't want anyone to benefit from it. If you are really concerned with something, my suggestion would be to email the folks here, and if nothing happens email the trademark/copyright owner. I think you'll find that you are the only one that cares 99.9% of the time.

I think that is part of the problem then.

Why is it that when I contact the copyright holder I get a return email saying basically 'who cares? what is the problem?' or just a 'I don't understand why your contacting us, if your not selling it what the big deal?'

...sometimes I don't know if I am talking to a kid or a lawyer who doesn't care!

Looking at the use policies it would seem that they can inact them at any time but choose not too... or don't care unless it involves money.

I don't know... anyone here how works as a lawyer?

don't know... anyone here how works as a lawyer?

..what do you want to know?

If I were to create any kind of "fan-art", I think I would only stick to creating Nintendo "fan-art" since they do encourage "fan-art" at their website by linking to personal websites with Nintendo fan-art and asking visitors to send their links to their "fan-art". They also encourage "fan-art" in Nintendo Power magazine by publishing their favorite "fan-art" submissions that was recieved over the last month.



[Message Edited]

#17 by yrag - 11/16/2003 12:09:59 AM don't know... anyone here now works as a lawyer? ..what do you want to know?

Everything state above to be precise. What do companies mean by using their images? How do they apply it?

[Message Edited]

#18 by Sir Tech Cat - 11/16/2003 12:10:56 AM If I were to create any kind of "fan-art", I think I would only stick to creating Nintendo "fan-art" since they do encourage "fan-art" at their website by linking to personal websites with Nintendo fan-art and asking visitors to send their links to their "fan-art". They also encourage "fan-art" in Nintendo Power magazine by publishing their favorite "fan-art" submissions that was recieved over the last month.

... and Warner Brothers doesn't?


[Message Edited]

I do not know if Warner Brothers does or does not encourage fan art. I just know for a fact that Nintendo does since I am a big fan of Nintendo that visits Nintendo sites and reads Nintendo Power magazine.

They have fan art websites. Superman, Batman... they have images and everything... and it would seem the only way to become an official fan site is to create one (as in Go Live with it) and then contact them.

Bugs Bunny (loony Toons) and the lot.

Unless they changed their policies in the last 2 months since i looked at those sites.

i am betting that most entertainment companies encourage fan-art because it is a free way to advertise their products. It would kind of be stupid for them not to.

The legal baseline states that any material created by 'x' is owned and protected under the various International Copyright Laws ( the U.S. is party to the International Copyright Conference) and cannot be used my anyone else excluding permission. Most countries have added amendments to those laws. Many Companies (and persons) have reasons for allowing (all self-serving) such infringements if it enhances their exposure to the pubic and such and will simply 'overlook' it. That in itself does not in any way relieve the 'user' of such protected property from legal liabilities covered under copyright laws.

Thanks for all your input everybody, however, I'm still not clear on the issue. I will read over the Copyright law that oSoShameless provided (thank you). But from what I have read so far and because WC does seem to be accepting submission without apparent copyright permissions, and because nothing that I upload here is for sale anyway, so I will not be profiting from anything ,then I'm not going to worry about too much. Does that make sense? I'm tired