Crossing the copyright line….

[Snarky]

41 minutes ago, Excraft said:

 

 

P.S. Hubris is thinking this game is so important that its worth Disney and Marvel and DC worrying about.  It isn't.

You are definitely allowed your opinion.   Heck, I will even give you mine!

 

The House of Mouse is KNOWN to be lovers of the litigious loophole.  They make a world of money off other peoples creativity and they will damn sure do everything they can to make sure they can do so forever 

 

The Mice brigade have tons of lawyers and clerks working non stop to slap down anyone who looks like they might be infringing on Mice cash.  
 

Homecoming does not need (and I doubt it could handle) that kind of heat

 

So NO, you, nor anyone else, can go about creating toons that infringe on anyones rights, copy, trade, civil, or basic humanitarian.   
 

And for the record, the character that I started this thread over was named “Mini-Hulk” and was a 4ft tall exact replica green skin purple shorts the whole bit.  
 

No, just NO

[Excraft]

12 minutes ago, Snarky said:

The Mice brigade have tons of lawyers and clerks working non stop to slap down anyone who looks like they might be infringing on Mice cash.  

 

I completely respect your opinion.  However, like I keep suggesting, the house of mouse could have their "tons of lawyers" standing at the front door of every comic con in the world handing out cease and desists to every single cosplayer walking through the door, especially to those making zombie or overtly sexualized versions of their intellectual property.  Those are easy targets, yet they don't do it.  They could shut down every website that hosts a piece of art drawn by a fan being shared for free, but they don't.  They could go on an a rampage to shut down every site offering a free skin of Disney/DC/Marvel characters for Minecraft or Roblox or the Sims or whatever else.  But they don't.  Absolutely they can do all these things.  I think it safe to say it's just not worth their time or effort, much like going after a rogue server running a stolen copy of a 20 year old game generating zero profit would be because someone made a Captain America or Iron Man clone. 

 

14 minutes ago, Snarky said:

So NO, you, nor anyone else, can go about creating toons that infringe on anyones rights, copy, trade, civil, or basic humanitarian.   

 

Never once suggested that I should be able to.  You'll note I said I've no issue with there being rules about this.   I do find it kinda funny that you're harping about others "infringing" on property rights when you're using an avatar of a person and character you certainly don't have any property rights to.  

 

15 minutes ago, Snarky said:

And for the record, the character that I started this thread over was named “Mini-Hulk” and was a 4ft tall exact replica green skin purple shorts the whole bit.  

 

Was it a parody character?  Far as I remember, those are absolutely allowed.  If not, then go ahead and report it if it will make you feel better.

[Excraft]

3 minutes ago, Krimson said:

If you refuse to abide by the Terms of Service that you agreed to, that is your decision. Remember to pretend to act surprised should HC Staff enforce the ToS you agreed to. 

 

I guess you missed this

 

1 hour ago, Excraft said:

It's perfectly fine to have the rules here on HC to cover IP rights and copyright notifications.  I've no objection to that and more power to them. 

 

 

[Burnt Umber]

5 minutes ago, Excraft said:

However, like I keep suggesting, the house of mouse could have their "tons of lawyers" standing at the front door of every comic con in the world handing out cease and desists to every single cosplayer walking through the door, especially to those making zombie or overtly sexualized versions of their intellectual property.  Those are easy targets, yet they don't do it.  They could shut down every website that hosts a piece of art drawn by a fan being shared for free, but they don't.  They could go on an a rampage to shut down every site offering a free skin of Disney/DC/Marvel characters for Minecraft or Roblox or the Sims or whatever else.  But they don't.  Absolutely they can do all these things.  I think it safe to say it's just not worth their time or effort, much like going after a rogue server running a stolen copy of a 20 year old game generating zero profit would be because someone made a Captain America or Iron Man clone. 

 

At the risk of dog-piling a bit, I think you are mistaken on a couple of things here.  I suspect that some of your examples would fall under the "fair use" carve out for copyrights.  Cosplayers are dressing-up for personal rather than commercial* purposes; they are possibly dressing-up as non-copyrightable** characters, or at least, they are not using the heart of such characters' copyright; and their dressing-up may in fact be sufficiently transformative.  Similarly, free fan art would also be personal rather than commercial, and an artist's personal rendition may very well be transformative.  A "free skin" offered in a video game could have been licensed and paid-for by the game maker/publisher so you are running a bit into a different area there.

 

So, I'm not sure your examples really demonstrate that "Disney/Marvel/DC/WB/HBO or any other IP holder" have better things to do than shut-down this game through a simple DMCA notice to Homecoming or, perhaps more likely, the server-hosting company for the game.

 

 

* I do realize that some people make money off cosplaying, but I don't think you could know that just standing at the door of a con.

** Technically, not every fictional character is copyrightable so it may very well depend on who is being depicted

[Snarky]

20 minutes ago, Excraft said:

 

I completely respect your opinion.  However, like I keep suggesting, the house of mouse could have their "tons of lawyers" standing at the front door of every comic con in the world handing out cease and desists to every single cosplayer walking through the door, especially to those making zombie or overtly sexualized versions of their intellectual property.  Those are easy targets, yet they don't do it.  They could shut down every website that hosts a piece of art drawn by a fan being shared for free, but they don't.  They could go on an a rampage to shut down every site offering a free skin of Disney/DC/Marvel characters for Minecraft or Roblox or the Sims or whatever else.  But they don't.  Absolutely they can do all these things.  I think it safe to say it's just not worth their time or effort, much like going after a rogue server running a stolen copy of a 20 year old game generating zero profit would be because someone made a Captain America or Iron Man clone. 

 

 

Never once suggested that I should be able to.  You'll note I said I've no issue with there being rules about this.   I do find it kinda funny that you're harping about others "infringing" on property rights when you're using an avatar of a person and character you certainly don't have any property rights to.  

 

 

Was it a parody character?  Far as I remember, those are absolutely allowed.  If not, then go ahead and report it if it will make you feel better.

They do not stand at the doors of comic con due to bad press.  And the geek army is their customer base.  Those people are not monetizing the stuff, they are worshipping it.

 

On your second point.  You are just wrong.  I cannot even understand how you do not get this.  You ever heard of google?

 

Is Nosferatu copyrighted?

In the United States, the law seems clear at first glance that the original version of Nosferatu is in the public domain. It premiered on March 4, 1922 in Berlin, and the conventional thinking that any film that was released prior to 1923, anywhere in the world, cannot be protected by the copyright laws of the United States.

 

 

[Captain Fabulous]

14 minutes ago, Snarky said:

Is Nosferatu copyrighted?

In the United States, the law seems clear at first glance that the original version of Nosferatu is in the public domain. It premiered on March 4, 1922 in Berlin, and the conventional thinking that any film that was released prior to 1923, anywhere in the world, cannot be protected by the copyright laws of the United States.

 

 

It's public domain in the US, tho it's not in some countries, including Germany.

Edited January 12, 2023 by Captain Fabulous

[Snarky]

4 minutes ago, Captain Fabulous said:

It's public domain in the US, tho it's not in some countries, including Germany.

I'm curious (and do not speak German, so research would be a bitch) if anyone "owns" the rights to Nosferatu in Germany.  It was my understanding the little film company disintegrated not long after the movie was finished.

[Captain Fabulous]

It blows my mind that we're just NOW getting to the point where TALKIES are in the public domain. It's so ridiculous.

[Snarky]

2 minutes ago, Captain Fabulous said:

It blows my mind that we're just NOW getting to the point where TALKIES are in the public domain. It's so ridiculous.

from wikipedia, my best shot:

Home video and copyright status[edit]

Nosferatu only entered the public domain worldwide at the end of 2019, although it was always treated as such anyway. This led to the widespread distribution of a sped-up, unrestored black and white bootleg copy.[1] Beginning in 1981, the film has had various different official restorations, several of which have been issued on home video in the U.S., Europe and Australia. These versions, which are all tinted, speed-corrected and have specially recorded scores, are separately copyrighted with respect to new copyrightable elements.[1]

[Burnt Umber]

6 minutes ago, Captain Fabulous said:

It blows my mind that we're just NOW getting to the point where TALKIES are in the public domain. It's so ridiculous.

 

It is kinda crazy, even more so when you realize there are certain films that entered the public domain because they weren't registered when the U.S. copyright law changed in the 1960s/70s.

[Captain Fabulous]

10 minutes ago, Snarky said:

I'm curious (and do not speak German, so research would be a bitch) if anyone "owns" the rights to Nosferatu in Germany.  It was my understanding the little film company disintegrated not long after the movie was finished.

It's incredibly complicated and honestly would require a court to sort it out. Best answer I have is the Stoker estate, but that's just a guess on my part.

[Snarky]

1 minute ago, Captain Fabulous said:

It's incredibly complicated and honestly would require a court to sort it out. Best answer I have is the Stoker estate, but that's just a guess on my part.

the Stoker estate had aklmost all the original film copies destroyed.  they have no rights to it.  they are not involved in nosferatu except as litigants

 

[Captain Fabulous]

13 minutes ago, Snarky said:

from wikipedia, my best shot:

Home video and copyright status[edit]

Nosferatu only entered the public domain worldwide at the end of 2019, although it was always treated as such anyway. This led to the widespread distribution of a sped-up, unrestored black and white bootleg copy.[1] Beginning in 1981, the film has had various different official restorations, several of which have been issued on home video in the U.S., Europe and Australia. These versions, which are all tinted, speed-corrected and have specially recorded scores, are separately copyrighted with respect to new copyrightable elements.[1]

Technically it never had any copyright to begin with, as it was ordered destroyed by the court when Florence Stoker sued for copyright infringement and won. The only reason it exists is due to a bootleg copy that made it out of Germany. But like I said, it's complicated. The Stoker estate could argue they own the rights since it was declared a derivative work based on Dracula. If that's the case I think it would still be under copyright till 2029. Or 2041. Depending upon which copyright laws apply. To a film that shouldn't even have one because it shouldn't exist.

Did I mention it's complicated? 🥴🥴🥴

[Captain Fabulous]

3 minutes ago, Snarky said:

the Stoker estate had aklmost all the original film copies destroyed.  they have no rights to it.  they are not involved in nosferatu except as litigants

 

One could argue, and there is court precedent, that if one has the right to order a work destroyed that they therefore own and control it. 🤷‍♂️

[Snarky]

11 minutes ago, Captain Fabulous said:

One could argue, and there is court precedent, that if one has the right to order a work destroyed that they therefore own and control it. 🤷‍♂️

no lawyer here, but i have bent a few laws in my time.  isnt it true that if you do not exercise your rights they disappear.  and there have been multiple remakes of nosferatu....

[Captain Fabulous]

1 minute ago, Snarky said:

no lawyer here, but i have bent a few laws in my time.  isnt it true that if you do not exercise your rights they disappear.  and there have been multiple remakes of nosferatu....

No. A copyright holder can selectively allow some infringing works while going after others. It's completely at their discretion, as ultimately it's a court that decides if something is an infringement or not. Trademark is what must be enforced at all times.

There is no copyright on Nosferatu in the US, so any remakes and restorations made here are legit. Interesting fun fact: restorations can themselves be copyrighted by the restorers as so to prevent others from using it without permission.

[Troo]

but in Paraguay

 

 

 

 

 

[Snarky]

50 minutes ago, Captain Fabulous said:

No. A copyright holder can selectively allow some infringing works while going after others. It's completely at their discretion, as ultimately it's a court that decides if something is an infringement or not. Trademark is what must be enforced at all times.

There is no copyright on Nosferatu in the US, so any remakes and restorations made here are legit. Interesting fun fact: restorations can themselves be copyrighted by the restorers as so to prevent others from using it without permission.

The original Bram Stoker novel was published in 1897. Due to its age the copyright has long expired and the book is in the public domain

[Snarky]

only in geek world do you spend two hours explaining that Dracula and Nosferatu (with how many remakes and parodies....) are not under copyright...

[Rishidian]

1 hour ago, Troo said:

but in Paraguay

 

 

 

 

 

Do as Paraguayans do?

[Player2]

9 hours ago, Snarky said:

no lawyer here, but i have bent a few laws in my time.  isnt it true that if you do not exercise your rights they disappear.  and there have been multiple remakes of nosferatu....

What you're referring to applies to trademarks, which must be actively defended or risk losing, while copyrights do not have such language in them but do expire after a certain amount of time.  The need to actively defend trademarks is kind of why Marvel had to sue NCSoft back in the day.  Basically, if one is aware (or can be presumed to be reasonably expected to be aware) of an infringement on a trademark and nothing is done about it, then the trademark is considered abandoned and up for grabs.  Because COH had a fair bit of notoriety and Marvel made their own trademark infringing characters to prove it could be done, their lawyers felt like they had to take action or risk losing all rights associated with them.  DC stood by and watched, probably waiting to see the outcome, but because there was an active effort to remove such infringing characters by NCSoft and Marvel's own efforts in creating such characters, it was all just dismissed.

 

One could also voluntarily, intentionally abandon trademarks for whatever reasons.  I can't remember the name of the company, but some skateboard merch company recently dropped their trademarked symbol that some felt looked too much like the old German iron cross due to negative associations with Nazis and the brand name.  I also recall Marvel being relatively unhappy with the Punisher's skull logo being unofficially adopted by pro-gun people and deciding to stop using that symbol on the character... but I'm not sure if it's been officially abandoned (yet).

[Excraft]

13 hours ago, Burnt Umber said:

At the risk of dog-piling a bit, I think you are mistaken on a couple of things here.  I suspect that some of your examples would fall under the "fair use" carve out for copyrights.  Cosplayers are dressing-up for personal rather than commercial* purposes; they are possibly dressing-up as non-copyrightable** characters, or at least, they are not using the heart of such characters' copyright; and their dressing-up may in fact be sufficiently transformative.  Similarly, free fan art would also be personal rather than commercial, and an artist's personal rendition may very well be transformative.  A "free skin" offered in a video game could have been licensed and paid-for by the game maker/publisher so you are running a bit into a different area there.

 

So, I'm not sure your examples really demonstrate that "Disney/Marvel/DC/WB/HBO or any other IP holder" have better things to do than shut-down this game through a simple DMCA notice to Homecoming or, perhaps more likely, the server-hosting company for the game.

 

 

* I do realize that some people make money off cosplaying, but I don't think you could know that just standing at the door of a con.

** Technically, not every fictional character is copyrightable so it may very well depend on who is being depicted

 

So dressing up as Superman and going to a comic con to run around and pretend to be Superman is ok because it isn't commercial.  Drawing a picture of Batman and posting it on your art site for free to share your artistic talent with others is ok because it isn't commercial.  Creating an homage in a defunct video game on a pirate server where there's no money being taken for profit and isn't being used for commercial purposes isn't ok?  Give me a break. 

 

Isn't someone making a character here for "personal rather can commercial" purposes?  If you're cosplaying as Iron Man at a comic con or cosplaying as Iron Man here in game, what's the real difference?  Why would Disney ignore one non-commercial thing and not another?  It would simply do them more harm than good for them to sue its own fans.  That's why they don't do it.  Absolutely without question Disney or Marvel or DC can hand out cease and desist letters to every cosplayer out there entering a con or posting photos of themselves online.  It may or may not be fair use, but that doesn't mean Disney can't sue people and take them to court for it.

 

Sure, there are licensed skins in all kinds of video games.  There's also a literal crap ton of them out there that are unlicensed. 

 

I completely get it that it's better to be safe than sorry and I keep repeating that I don't object to their being rules here for it.  I'm just finding most of the excuses being given for why it's necessary very, very thin at best and the application of those rules absolutely ludicrously biased. 

 

11 hours ago, Snarky said:

The original Bram Stoker novel was published in 1897. Due to its age the copyright has long expired and the book is in the public domain

 

That's nice.  Is the Shadow of the Vampire version you're using as an avatar expired too?  Or do you have permission to use it from the owner/actor/producer/studio?

[Snarky]

10 minutes ago, Excraft said:

 

So dressing up as Superman and going to a comic con to run around and pretend to be Superman is ok because it isn't commercial.  Drawing a picture of Batman and posting it on your art site for free to share your artistic talent with others is ok because it isn't commercial.  Creating an homage in a defunct video game on a pirate server where there's no money being taken for profit and isn't being used for commercial purposes isn't ok?  Give me a break. 

 

Isn't someone making a character here for "personal rather can commercial" purposes?  If you're cosplaying as Iron Man at a comic con or cosplaying as Iron Man here in game, what's the real difference?  Why would Disney ignore one non-commercial thing and not another?  It would simply do them more harm than good for them to sue its own fans.  That's why they don't do it.  Absolutely without question Disney or Marvel or DC can hand out cease and desist letters to every cosplayer out there entering a con or posting photos of themselves online.  It may or may not be fair use, but that doesn't mean Disney can't sue people and take them to court for it.

 

Sure, there are licensed skins in all kinds of video games.  There's also a literal crap ton of them out there that are unlicensed. 

 

I completely get it that it's better to be safe than sorry and I keep repeating that I don't object to their being rules here for it.  I'm just finding most of the excuses being given for why it's necessary very, very thin at best and the application of those rules absolutely ludicrously biased. 

 

 

That's nice.  Is the Shadow of the Vampire version you're using as an avatar expired too?  Or do you have permission to use it from the owner/actor/producer/studio?

oooooh.  You have a fair question there.  I do not know the legalese, precedents, or current court rulings on the matter.  I can summarize though: No one gives a shit.

 

My in game toon is as close as I can get to Max Shreck (much as this picture was as close as Willem Dafoe could get) which is definitely fair game.

 

Trivia question to the true geeks:  In what movie did Willem Dafoe get into drag to kill gangsters?

[Bionic_Flea]

20 minutes ago, Snarky said:

I can summarize though: No one gives a . . .

[Luminara]

44 minutes ago, Snarky said:

In what movie did Willem Dafoe get into drag to kill gangsters?

 

Boondock Saints.