Copyrighted Generics Issues

[Freaksh0w]

snitches get stitches

[Oubliette_Red]

3 hours ago, Freaksh0w said:

snitches get stitches

Can't.

 

That's a Disney character.

[Oubliette_Red]

3 hours ago, Freaksh0w said:

snitches get stitches

Besides...

 

[Freaksh0w]

6 hours ago, Oubliette_Red said:

Can't.

 

That's a Disney character.

When did I say it's a character from disney? Read my post above, I didn't say a Disney character

[MunkiLord]

7 hours ago, Freaksh0w said:

When did I say it's a character from disney? Read my post above, I didn't say a Disney character

[Oubliette_Red]

1 hour ago, MunkiLord said:

Once more, I am disappointed that I can react but once to one of your posts.

 

[Jaegernault]

On 4/24/2020 at 9:53 PM, Troo said:

@Jaegernault just to reiterate x number of pages in:

 

+

Are there any rules and policies I should read?

Yes! Please read the User Agreement, Privacy Policy and Code of Conduct.
+

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

Clearly did not read the initial post correctly as the whole point was its so vague. Posting a link to Policies in a thread debating those policies isn't actually contributing. One cannot pretend to know the minds of others and assume the intentions based on their own experiences. I could easily make a costume I think is original, only to find that someone somewhere has read a comic book from 30 years ago that has something similar to mine, not through any form of copyright but simply because we came to the same result when playing with costume designs.

 

Philo Taylor Farnsworth  demonstrated a working television in San Francisco in 1927. Boris Rosing conducted crude experiments in transmitting images 16 years before Farnsworths first success, does that mean that Boris should have gotten credit for the concept instead of Farnsworth. A mechanical TV was demonstrated by John Logie in the early 1920's. 3 parallel strands of research all working towards the same goal in their own way. Farnsworth clearly had the better branch and gave birth to what we have now, but technically he was the 3rd person to play with the idea. For all we know farnsworth could have gone to the demo that John performed and been inspired. Farnsworth should get credit, but it was still similar to earlier attempts.

 

If the components are not copyright, why should the end result be. Does the person who realized a round stone moves easier get to lay claim to everything involving a wheel. If the components are available, their use should be allowed, else someone will have used something similar somewhere if you look hard enough. 

 

Names I totally agree with, be creative. But costumes should have more flexibility, or have mutually exclusive rules on outfitting like some parts already do.

[Blastit]

You're just going to have to live with the ambiguity. Make whatever costume you want to and live with the risk of suffering the horrible consequences of having to change it a little.

[Haijinx]

I feel some people are deliberately obtuse here.

 

Superman for example has a very stylized costume.  Its obvious if you are copying it. 

 

Comic book Wolverine does also.  However in the first Xman movie, everyone is just in black leather.  

 

Black leather while debateably stylish in many instances, is not stylized per se.  And lots of fictional characters in many mediums have gone this route 

 

So if you made a black leather costume you wouldn't be copying anything. 

 

 

 

=========

Preemptive response warning.  Intentionally obtuse responses will only receive a LOL in return.   

[Troo]

9 hours ago, Jaegernault said:

Posting a link to Policies in a thread debating those policies isn't actually contributing.

[ShardWarrior]

On 5/9/2020 at 5:38 AM, Haijinx said:

Superman for example has a very stylized costume.

As far as costumes go, his is probably one of the more plain ones out there. 

[Williwaw]

3 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:

As far as costumes go, his is probably one of the more plain ones out there. 

This.  Superman has a very basic costume.  He's wearing an early-twentieth-century circus strongman's outfit in primary colors that looked good with the crappy printing techniques used in 1939.  He's been around so long that it's basically the Default Superhero Costume now.  I mean, run a Google image search for "generic superhero" and you get mostly Superman-alikes in slightly different color combinations.

 

What's distinctive about his costume is the trademarked "S" emblem, which isn't in-game.

[MunkiLord]

On 5/9/2020 at 3:44 AM, Jaegernault said:

Clearly did not read the initial post correctly as the whole point was its so vague. Posting a link to Policies in a thread debating those policies isn't actually contributing. One cannot pretend to know the minds of others and assume the intentions based on their own experiences. I could easily make a costume I think is original, only to find that someone somewhere has read a comic book from 30 years ago that has something similar to mine, not through any form of copyright but simply because we came to the same result when playing with costume designs.

 

Philo Taylor Farnsworth  demonstrated a working television in San Francisco in 1927. Boris Rosing conducted crude experiments in transmitting images 16 years before Farnsworths first success, does that mean that Boris should have gotten credit for the concept instead of Farnsworth. A mechanical TV was demonstrated by John Logie in the early 1920's. 3 parallel strands of research all working towards the same goal in their own way. Farnsworth clearly had the better branch and gave birth to what we have now, but technically he was the 3rd person to play with the idea. For all we know farnsworth could have gone to the demo that John performed and been inspired. Farnsworth should get credit, but it was still similar to earlier attempts.

 

If the components are not copyright, why should the end result be. Does the person who realized a round stone moves easier get to lay claim to everything involving a wheel. If the components are available, their use should be allowed, else someone will have used something similar somewhere if you look hard enough. 

 

Names I totally agree with, be creative. But costumes should have more flexibility, or have mutually exclusive rules on outfitting like some parts already do.

First, your TV example is not applicable here as that is about patents and not copyright. If Rosing had a patent on his technology, it very well may have expired within 16 years(extremely likely). If that was case, then unequivocally no, Boris should not have gotten credit. Innovation is at least as important as invention. Additionally you don't provide any information on how each person developed the technology. The idea of a television is not eligible for a patent, it is how you do it that matters. Which is why software patents are a bad thing and shouldn't exist since they are almost always a patent on an idea. Ideas without execution/implementation are almost all universally worthless.

 

Quite often components are not copyrightable. Basic shapes or musical chords cannot be copyrighted. But unique fixed expressions that use them can be. Same with words. Nobody can copyright a word, but you can copyright a poem or book. 

 

I agree with you that copyright is ridiculous in many ways. I'm actually firmly against literally 100% of any expansion on copyright until we get it under control and it actually makes sense. It's a system ripe for abuse by individuals, corporations, and governments to stifle creativity and quite often speech. Copyright as it exists today does more harm than good. Meaning I feel the world would be a better place if it didn't exist at all compared to what we currently have.

 

That being said, you're criticizing the wrong people here. The fact of the matter is copyright is a liability for the HC team and any platform that allows people to create or upload content. Likely an extremely small chance of it being used against them, but why risk it? The HC servers and the individuals running HC have little to nothing to gain by ignoring it. And however small the risk, it's still a risk.

 

Finally, and most importantly, more specific rules and guidelines on this likely isn't to happen. Because they don't exist. The HC team can only use their best judgment, erring on the side of covering their asses, because only a court or other government sanctioned body can officially say if something is infringing or not.

 

Write your politicians, and keep doing it, letting them know how much IP law has been turned into bullshit. And watch extremely suspiciously and closely anytime a big corporation gets involved in a copyright, patent, or trademark squabble, their best interests usually don't align with ours. It's also a good way to find out when a company is out of ideas and innovations. If they start to sue a bunch of other companies over patent infringement that likely means their best days are behind them.