Crossing the copyright line….

[Snarky]

21 minutes ago, srmalloy said:

You can blame Disney and the Mickey Mouse Perpetual Protection Act Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act. 

 

Little known fact; the witches cabal that worked to get this written into law resorted to extreme dark magic and offered up the soul of Sonny Bono to complete the deal.  And that is how it got it’s name

[Player2]

On 1/1/2023 at 1:15 AM, Snarky said:

So someone logged into  Atlas today and shouted in broadcast “Hi I am mini-(major trademarked super).  And that was their name.  I looked over (I was next to Ms belt o’ freedom) and they were indeed about a four foot tall version of their muse.   
 

I did not report them.  I feel protective of the community but I hate politics.  (To me this is political)

 

I also figured they were probably already reported on on their way to mini generic 1755362

 

What say you? Should I have snitched?

Trademark... not copyright.  Trademark protects likenesses and made up words.  Copyright is for story and original visual works.

 

For example, Batman is a made up word using two common words mashed together.  Batman's likeness is fairly well established.

Making a character that looks like and has some bastardization of the name to get past the filter would be violations of his trademark appearance and name.

 

If you started stealing Batman story ideas and putting them into AE, then you could be guilty of copyright infringement.

For copyright to apply to likeness, it would have to be ripping off a specific image... like say the cover of a specific issue of Batman, attempting to reproduce the background elements and character pose and so on.  But the copyright on each Batman comic book cover is its own thing, just all held by the same company.

 

If you had a copyrighted comic book but no trademark on the characters on the cover, your cover could still be infringed if someone were trying to reproduce your art... but if someone took the untrademarked character from your copyrighted comic book cover and used it in a different way (different scene, pose, etc), then you've got no case.

 

 

On 1/4/2023 at 10:14 PM, TheZag said:

This looks like a job for....

 

 

CopyrightInfringementMan !!

 

Oddly, CopyrightinfrigementMan actually looks a trademark infringement violation of Mad Magazine's Incredible Infringement Man.

 

A case could probably be made by Mad Magazine even though the costume elements are different because it is thematically the same idea. 

[DoctorDitko]

The extended copyright periods are flat out stealing from us, the public.

 

Just this year, the last Sherlock Holmes stories passed into the public domain.

 

But Batman, born a decade later? Never gonna happen.

[Snarky]

2 hours ago, Player2 said:

Trademark... not copyright.  Trademark protects likenesses and made up words.  Copyright is for story and original visual works.

 

For example, Batman is a made up word using two common words mashed together.  Batman's likeness is fairly well established.

Making a character that looks like and has some bastardization of the name to get past the filter would be violations of his trademark appearance and name.

 

If you started stealing Batman story ideas and putting them into AE, then you could be guilty of copyright infringement.

For copyright to apply to likeness, it would have to be ripping off a specific image... like say the cover of a specific issue of Batman, attempting to reproduce the background elements and character pose and so on.  But the copyright on each Batman comic book cover is its own thing, just all held by the same company.

 

If you had a copyrighted comic book but no trademark on the characters on the cover, your cover could still be infringed if someone were trying to reproduce your art... but if someone took the untrademarked character from your copyrighted comic book cover and used it in a different way (different scene, pose, etc), then you've got no case.

 

 

der fledermaus?

[Ironblade]

43 minutes ago, Snarky said:

der fledermaus?

And when they brought The Tick to television, they changed the character to a Hispanic hero named Batmanuel.

[Ghost]

2 hours ago, DoctorDitko said:

The extended copyright periods are flat out stealing from us, the public.

 

Just this year, the last Sherlock Holmes stories passed into the public domain.

 

But Batman, born a decade later? Never gonna happen.

Please explain how they are stealing from us

[Player2]

49 minutes ago, Ghost said:

Please explain how they are stealing from us

If they're stealing from anyone, they're stealing from the original creators.

[Player2]

2 hours ago, Snarky said:

der fledermaus?

 

2 hours ago, Ironblade said:

And when they brought The Tick to television, they changed the character to a Hispanic hero named Batmanuel.

Sometimes one can circumvent copyright and trademark with parody.  However, parody can be shaky legal ground to stand on, and you have to be willing to make that stand.  Artists and the companies they work for are usually better prepared to stand that ground than a game company is for a player's claim of parody.  And when the game company is itself already on questionable legal ground, even less so.

[Ghost]

1 hour ago, Player2 said:

If they're stealing from anyone, they're stealing from the original creators.

That’s my thoughts also

[Snarky]

4 hours ago, Player2 said:

If they're stealing from anyone, they're stealing from the original creators.

It is a crime! It is like they are draining the very life out of….   Wait a sec…. Pot, Kettle….  Hmmmm. Nope, we’re good.  Carry on.

[The Scandinavian]

On 1/5/2023 at 2:38 AM, jdaddy15911 said:

Tbh, I have a toon dressed in white with a beard and long hair with a halo over his head that runs around healing people and raising them from the dead, and his name is Jeshua Cristo. I guess I’m not the only one who lacks imagination.

Mythological characters don't count, everybody " borrows " from world myth including big shots like DC and Marvel. 

[Snarky]

5 minutes ago, Krimson said:

The Fir Bolg were plain ordinary humans who happened to have a human king named Eochaid mac Eirc nearly 4000 years ago. The Irish king that succeeded him was Bres of the Tuatha de Dannan. Bres was also a human, and not a whole bunch of green deer lieutenants. 

No one know what happened in Ireland that long ago.  The faerie circles are still there, some of the passage tombs. maybe some other odds and ends hiding beneath the bogs....

[twozerofoxtrot]

On 1/6/2023 at 3:25 AM, Ironblade said:

No one should have this kind of power...

 

[Luminara]

34 minutes ago, Snarky said:

No one know what happened in Ireland that long ago.

 

[Captain Fabulous]

On 1/6/2023 at 8:54 PM, Player2 said:

Trademark... not copyright.  Trademark protects likenesses and made up words.  Copyright is for story and original visual works.

 

For example, Batman is a made up word using two common words mashed together.  Batman's likeness is fairly well established.

Making a character that looks like and has some bastardization of the name to get past the filter would be violations of his trademark appearance and name.

 

If you started stealing Batman story ideas and putting them into AE, then you could be guilty of copyright infringement.

For copyright to apply to likeness, it would have to be ripping off a specific image... like say the cover of a specific issue of Batman, attempting to reproduce the background elements and character pose and so on.  But the copyright on each Batman comic book cover is its own thing, just all held by the same company.

 

If you had a copyrighted comic book but no trademark on the characters on the cover, your cover could still be infringed if someone were trying to reproduce your art... but if someone took the untrademarked character from your copyrighted comic book cover and used it in a different way (different scene, pose, etc), then you've got no case.

 

This is not quite accurate. Uncommon names can be trademarked, but only for certain things, like merchandise and movie or publishing titles. Characters can fall under copyright, but that takes the name, look, and details of the character into consideration. Direct copying of stories and art is also definitely copyright infringement. Trademarks can last forever as long as they are used, renewed, and enforced. Copyrights expire...eventually.

A perfect example of this is Captain Marvel. Marvel Comics has the trademark on the name which allows them to publish a comic and release a movie with that name in the title (comic and movie titles are separate trademarks, btw). Both Marvel and DC can have characters named Captain Marvel, and each holds a copyright based upon both the name and the graphical representation of the character. As long as each character is substantially different from the other the use of the name itself is not enough for a copyright violation. But under no circumstances can DC publish a comic with "Captain Marvel" in the title, as that would be a trademark violation. Which is why when DC brought him back in 1973 the comics were titled "SHAZAM!" (or some derivative thereof, e.g. "The Power of SHAZAM!"). DC didn't have to change the character's name from Captain Marvel to Shazam, that's something they chose to do for the New 52 reboot.

Names of well-known characters such as Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, etc. get an extra layer of copyright protection due to their notoriety. While technically Marvel could create a character named Superman (as long as he was substantially different in both appearance and function), DC would argue (and win) that because the name Superman is so well-known and recognizable that it would cause significant confusion simply due to the name.

Another good example is Mickey Mouse himself. At the end of this year the copyright on Steamboat Willie expires. This means Mickey Mouse will finally enter the public domain and will be free for anyone to use in whatever way they please (Disney says they have no plans to fight for another extension, but we shall see). But there's a catch: only the visual representation of Mickey Mouse as he appears in Steamboat Willie will be in the public domain, and that version of Mickey is VERY different than what he looks like today. And you still won't be able to use the name "Mickey Mouse" in a title or on merchandise because that's trademarked.

And yet another wrinkle in copyright is homage, fair use, and parody, which can further blur the lines in a copyright battle, and often comes down to a judge or jury to decide if a copyright has been violated.

Hope this clears things up a bit.

Edited January 8, 2023 by Captain Fabulous

[Dryfter]

Homage toons that don't cross "The line" are great. Have a few myself, such as "Legacy Vell" (The only thing he has in common with Mar-Vell is the color scheme and the star). But I am WAY sick of seeing toons such as Cycl0ps, that look just like the comic book versions. It not only puts our game in danger, but it shows a complete lack of creativity. The costume creator in CoH is QUITE rich. There is zero need to copy the talents of others.

I report them. EVERY TIME. 

Edited January 8, 2023 by Dryfter

[TalynDerre]

Parody is protected speech (and, since this isn't for-profit, it's probably Fair Use) but I don't want the Devs to have to deal with that drama to prove it.

[tidge]

On 1/7/2023 at 8:14 PM, Snarky said:

No one know what happened in Ireland that long ago.  The faerie circles are still there, some of the passage tombs. maybe some other odds and ends hiding beneath the bogs....

 

On 1/7/2023 at 8:20 PM, Krimson said:

They were all human...

 

[UltraAlt]

On 1/6/2023 at 11:14 PM, DoctorDitko said:

But Batman, born a decade later? Never gonna happen.

 

 

 

“The Spider is the number three most popular pulp character in the field. He is right behind The Shadow and Doc Savage,” said Tom Brown, the owner of Radio Archives during an interview with Scoop earlier this week.

While almost everyone knows full well who Doc Savage and the Shadow are, awareness of The Spider seems to have eluded many but the most faithful."

- https://scoop.previewsworld.com/Home/4/1/73/1023?articleID=128349

[UltraAlt]

On 1/7/2023 at 11:10 PM, Captain Fabulous said:

While technically Marvel could create a character named Superman (as long as he was substantially different in both appearance and function), DC would argue (and win) that because the name Superman is so well-known and recognizable that it would cause significant confusion simply due to the name.

 

[Captain Fabulous]

24 minutes ago, UltraAlt said:

 

Yeah, I remember this whole debacle. Just goes to show that copyright can be a total sh*tshow.

They touched on it in the video, that DC sued Fawcett in the early 40s claiming that Captain Marvel was an infringement of Superman solely due to having similar powers and despite having a completely different name, look, and backstory. And that was a case that dragged on for over a decade until Fawcett just gave up due to superhero comics no longer being profitable at that point and agreeing to never publish Captain Marvel in comics again. But they kept the rights to all the Marvel family characters, which they licensed to DC in 1973 and later sold outright to them a few years later.

[Ironblade]

On 1/7/2023 at 11:10 PM, Captain Fabulous said:

While technically Marvel could create a character named Superman (as long as he was substantially different in both appearance and function), DC would argue (and win) that because the name Superman is so well-known and recognizable that it would cause significant confusion simply due to the name.

An amusing story about the 'confusion' aspect.

The Beatles founded Apple Records.  When Apple Computers came along, Apple Records sued over the similarity in the name.  They lost and the court pointed out that people were unlikely to confuse a computer company with a record company.  Fast forward to when Apple became the largest seller of digital music.

[Captain Fabulous]

2 hours ago, Ironblade said:

An amusing story about the 'confusion' aspect.

The Beatles founded Apple Records.  When Apple Computers came along, Apple Records sued over the similarity in the name.  They lost and the court pointed out that people were unlikely to confuse a computer company with a record company.  Fast forward to when Apple became the largest seller of digital music.

It is indeed a fascinating look into how trademarks are handled, and how the winner tends to be the bigger company (at first Apple Records, and then later Apple Computers). The whole sordid affair is well documented here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer

[Dugunthi]

The fundamental issue in the above example is that something as ordinary and commonplace as simply "Apple" can be trademarked at all.

[Snarky]

11 minutes ago, Dugunthi said:

The fundamental issue in the above example is that something as ordinary and commonplace as simply "Apple" can be trademarked at all.

Its called owning the government, or enough people in it to get your way

 

At the risk of.  Nvm.  I just run with it.  The Supreme Court all individually talked about the importance of precedent when asked.  As soon as they got in power they did what they wanted and overrode precedent.

 

 Power equals doing what you want. That is why Redside will always be the truth side.