|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Jul 27, 2012 3:18:48 GMT
I completely understand all that! I was speaking more in a general sense. I'm not trying to argue that we should be able to sell tom's work; I'm not really arguing any point at all! I was just discussing the active consequences of using another person's intellectual property.  Ah, I see, my mistake. Well, as Tom said earlier, there is an element of the art community which has some fun and earns some money from drawing other people's works. I'm not stomping on that, but in this particular case it's a no go. |
|
|
|
Post by Stately Buff-Cookie on Jul 27, 2012 8:24:22 GMT
The real tragedy here is it shouldn't take anything more than a, "Please stop selling my work," for someone to stop. Even before you get in to legalities, that's just basic decency.
|
|
|
|
Post by echoeternal on Oct 14, 2012 21:44:43 GMT
Really interesting thread.
I don't know whether Tom's issue with people charging for fan art is the legality (it doesn't sound like it), that it cuts into his profits, that less skilled renderings of his characters are being propagated (since he allows fan art, I doubt it), or that artists are being unoriginal (again, I doubt it since he allows fan art).
So...Tom, if your issue is with profits, would you be willing to allow others to take commissions for GKC fan art if they gave you a portion of the profits? If so, proximately what percentage? Does it depend on the medium? I saw some really cool hoodie designs in the fan art section and I know some people who would be only too willing to make GKC plushies; what cut would you want for such fan merch?
Edit: I'm sorry for necroposting =( I didn't notice the last post's date was months ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aviyara on Oct 15, 2012 9:59:58 GMT
From what I understand, the issue here is something along the lines of patent law. I am an inventor, and I create a new product (for illustration's sake, a wine-bottle opener) that is in some way unique from other products on the market (let's say it works by vibrating the glass fast enough that the cork is slowly dislodged from the bottle). In accordance with the law, as this is a non-artistic product, I must apply for a patent illustrating the particular thing in this device that is unique and my own creation. Thereafter, no other living human can sell wine-bottle openers that operate by sound-vibrations, because they are infringing on my rights as original creator. They may create them for their own personal uses, but they may not sell them. Tom is an artist; an inventor of stories. He creates a new product (a drawing of Annie and her surroundings, which he calls Gunnerkrigg Court) which is unique from other products on the market. In accordance with his laws, he need not file for a patent, as his product is art; at the instant it is created it is protected by a Copyright (which protects it until Tom relinquishes it to someone else or ceases to exist as a legal entity - usually via death). Thereafter, no other living human can sell drawings of Annie, because they are infringing on his rights as original creator. They may create them for their own personal uses, but they may not sell them. Apparently there is an international convention on all of this. It seems to be worth reading. |
|
|
|
Post by Mitth'raw'nuruodo on Oct 16, 2012 5:30:07 GMT
It's amazing how stupid some people are. A point that no one has brought up yet: You aren't allowed to make money from writing fanfiction without permission from the creator of the universe/characters (Star Wars comes to mind), so why would you be able to make money from fanart? There is no real difference beyond the medium. In any case, whether or not it's a commonly tolerated practice, if the creator specifically tells you not to use their work in that way, you've got to be a real piece of work to keep doing it anyway. (This is the man behind the curtain.) This is funny, because I have both an unique and a qualified perspective on this matter; I have taken a name from a Star Wars Novel, Heir to the Empire by Timothy Zahn, which is copyright by Lucasfilms, Ltd., as such they have the right to the name, and the all derivatives thereof. Now, I cannot be infringing for using his name in a board online. I cannot get into legal trouble for writing fanfiction, however this is not all that I do here on the board. As the name "Mitth'Raw'Nuruodo", I roleplay a certain voice, cant, and diction. I do not speak in my voice here on the website, I speak in a stylized format of the Grand Admiral, as such, I am using Timothy Zahn's and Lucasfilms, Ltd.'s character in a fair use format. No one will mistake me for an actual representative of Lucasfilms, Ltd., no one will purchase my thread posts and pass them off as official from Lucasfilms, Ltd., nor will anyone believe that I am the actual fictional character, as such I am protected. Were I to make a parody, I would protected, because, again, it is quite clear that I am not Lucasfilms, Ltd., nor do I wish to be seen as such, I am making a parody of the aforementioned product. Now the issue, legally, enters when I write a piece of fiction, and attempt to sell it. What is happening here is that I am attempting to sell something that is not mine, I have no right to it, not being licensed or being of Lucasfilms, Ltd., and as such I am in copyright violation. Whether or not my work is of value, is of no matter, I am attempting to pass off my work as official. Even if I declaim that I am functioning in any official capacity and that I am simply a private citizen selling my own work, I am not protected. The concept of, and any profit thereof, are owned by Lucasfilms, Ltd. Even if Lucasfilms, Ltd., did not own a copyright to the character, if they took offense to my actions, they could take me to court and take control back, as they have automatically gained a copyright due to the Berne Conventions. Now, let me make this argument in the form of an analogy: I have property. I have trees on said property. These trees are special. I have named them, THE TREES OF EFFERVESCENT SOLIDITY AND MAGIC. My neighbor comes along, and says, "Let us chop down those trees, the TOESAM trees and sell them. It would make great firewood." I say, " No." He says, "Fine, be as you wish." and returns home. He then names his trees THE TREES OF EFFERVESCENT SOLIDITY AND MAGIC, chops them down, and sells the firewood as THE FIREWOOD OF THE TREES OF EFFERVESCENT SOLIDITY AND MAGIC. It now is worth much money. This is harmful to me. Why? Because I had the THE TREES OF EFFERVESCENT SOLIDITY AND MAGIC, but now my neighbor has them, even though he does not. Yes he had the work of overnight growing trees, but what he says is a lie, he does not have the TOESAM[/i] trees, I do. And if I want to sell firewood from said trees, I should not have to compete with someone else for my property. He can call them something close, just not THE TREES OF EFFERVESCENT SOLIDITY AND MAGIC. For these trees are mine, and mine alone, unless I give it to someone else. TL...(Read my post. It will be the only time that I drop my facade as Thrawn and speak as the man behing the curtain [or computer in this case].) TL;DR And yes, I understand YOU WOULDN'T DOWNLOAD A BEAR. Let me ask you something, you tell me an idea for a book, the most wonderful book, and I go and make it and sell it first, wouldn't you be mad? If you made a character, and I started selling copies of it, and you are morally opposed to merchandise, and will never sell a whit of merchandise, and as such I am not taking money away from you, would you too not be mad at me? You would. Fanart for sale is illegal and wrong.(FACADE RE-ENABLED.) |
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Oct 16, 2012 14:05:21 GMT
I have property. I have trees on said property. These trees are special. I have named them, THE TREES OF EFFERVESCENT SOLIDITY AND MAGIC. My neighbor comes along, and says, "Let us chop down those trees, the TOESAM trees and sell them. It would make great firewood." I say, " No." He says, "Fine, be as you wish." and returns home. He then names his trees THE TREES OF EFFERVESCENT SOLIDITY AND MAGIC, chops them down, and sells the firewood as THE FIREWOOD OF THE TREES OF EFFERVESCENT SOLIDITY AND MAGIC. It now is worth much money. This is harmful to me. Why? Because I had the THE TREES OF EFFERVESCENT SOLIDITY AND MAGIC, but now my neighbor has them, even though he does not. Yes he had the work of overnight growing trees, but what he says is a lie, he does not have the TOESAM[/i] trees, I do. And if I want to sell firewood from said trees, I should not have to compete with someone else for my property. He can call them something close, just not THE TREES OF EFFERVESCENT SOLIDITY AND MAGIC. For these trees are mine, and mine alone, unless I give it to someone else.[/quote] Sorry, a lengthy post and not only answering to the one above. If the magic tree -case does not interest you, scroll a bit down to find some quotations more to the point. Now, to magic trees: I can't see what this analogy brings to the case. Regardless to the actual issue of stealing from Tom, this analogy is not only unrealistic, but it fails to meet conditions of any real life case (thus it is analogical of what exactly?). It is hard to make any sense out of it, actually (and thus pardon me if this seems unrelated, but it is hard to see what is related), and I particularly don't see how your trees touch the intellectual property issue at all, because just naming stuff on my backyard does not establish an intellectual property. In fact, only if you have the whatever-magic-trees name protected by authorities is there a problem in naming some other trees elsewhere the same and selling them with that name. Sure, if you make stuff out of spruce and sell it as oak, that is a crime, but it is not a crime against the real oak growers, but against the customers. So, sure, if you had somehow superspecial trees and your neighbour claimed to sell them, yet sold something else, it would be a crime. But it would be a very different crime than selling fanfiction. You'd have a case if your product was something like champagne, and somebody was selling his sparkling as champagne. And why wouldn't he, if he had made practically the same thing? Because champagne refers to a particular place in world and people want to know that they are buying sparkling wine from there and not from Catalonia, for example. But other than that, there is no problem and the case has nothing to do with fanfiction. A lot of wine, for example, is sold with a name that was first used elsewhere for some other wine, and the new wine is not the same. One example would be that some half of wines of Germany are "burgunder"-something. The point is not in that you name something, but in that the name refers to something specifically protected. There is endless amounts of products with same general name, though different content. Imagine I invented brownies. Now my neighbour buys them and likes them and as a good baker she mixes up a recipe of her own and sells them as her brownies, "Sally's Tasty Brownies" as opposed to my "Original Super Chocolate Brownies". Branding is another thing. You can violate a brand, but then the brand should be on markets too unlike your trees - and your neighbour can always sell them as his magic-trees, just like Sally can sell her brownies under a different brand. Like with the hyper-mofo car I made up earlier, the case would only be different if I had made a product called that, with a distinguishable logo and such, and they would come too close to that. And then it would be a branding issue. However, although branding is an intellectual property thing and surely Tom has right to the brand of Gunnerkriggcourt, it is not yet the same thing as the artistic creation. Annie is not a brand, or if there (probably) is a brand called "Annie", it is not the GKC-Annie and Tom has no rights to it. I have no idea what kind of GKC-stuff has been sold by non-Tom people, but if I drew an Annie-figure without ever saying a word about GKC, then it was not a branding issue. Sorry for rambling through this, but the magic-tree thing was just so odd. Now, to the actual character copyright thing that I think was the concern here (correct me if I'm wrong, I do not know what is the actual case discussed here, but I got it from Mitth that this would have to do with using a character in other art work and selling it). I quote directly Davis' article in which she strongly refers to professor Tushnet (so this can be attributed to Tushnet): "What about visual representations of a character? If I draw a picture of Korra without telling a story about Korra, do I have to deal with the copyright holders of The Legend of Korra? Well, we have one case straight from comics. 1978's Walt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates involved the underground comic Air Pirates Funnies. The comic starred a mouse named Mickey who looked an awful lot like Disney's mouse but who engaged in behavior never seen inside a Disney cartoon. The California District Court stated that "a comic book character, which has physical as well as conceptual qualities, is more likely to contain some unique elements of expression [than a literary character does]." Other courts have cited the Air Pirates as standing for the idea that creators have a right to visual representations of their characters. That means that an image of Korra — or any other graphically represented character — is subject to copyright." So, yes, if you draw a figure too close to Annie and sell it, you m ay be in trouble. Meanwhile, just drawing a red-headed girl with telepathic powers does no infringe Tom's copyrights, not even if it was called Annie. It must be much more specific, really recognizable. And even then, there is fair use, and although it mostly concerns noncommercial fanfiction, selling fanfiction is to some extent allowed too: "Regardless of whether your work is commercial or noncommercial, a court would also look at whether the work is transformative, whether you alter the "expression, meaning, or message" (as the Campbell decision puts it) of the original content through your use of the copyrighted material." And directly from Tushnet (quoted by Davis): "Transformativeness in fanworks takes many forms, from critique to celebration to reworking a text so that it better addresses the concerns of a specific audience. For example, fanworks based on television shows often rework the canonical versions to focus on the aspects that interest the female audiences disdained by network television. In general, noncommercial fan communities routinely reward what might be called transformation by excavation – new works that succeed creatively by illuminating something about the originals." The bottom line is that if you transform the work enough, take new perspectives and so on, you can sell it. Some characters, if they are essential to the story, may be copyrighted - to some extent. Even if Harry Potter the character is essential to Harry Potter the story, you can use Harry Potter in a fan fiction and sell it without infringing the copyright - but then you must have a very different look at Harry Potter in your story. And the same with Annie. If link above does not work, read more here: io9.com/5933976/are-fan-fiction-and-fan-art-legal |
|
|
|
Post by Mitth'raw'nuruodo on Oct 16, 2012 15:01:31 GMT
To zimmyzims: Yes, the trees example was nonsensical, it was meant to be silly. What I was attempting to express is what you said, "Other courts have cited the Air Pirates as standing for the idea that creators have a right to visual representations of their characters. That means that an image of Korra — or any other graphically represented character — is subject to copyright."
I was trying to say, successfully or not, that the trees have a unique character and are therefore protected, I did not go into as much detail, simply because I felt my post was long enough. If that was the source of confusion, I apologize.
|
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Oct 16, 2012 15:23:10 GMT
To zimmyzims: Yes, the trees example was nonsensical, it was meant to be silly. What I was attempting to express is what you said, "Other courts have cited the Air Pirates as standing for the idea that creators have a right to visual representations of their characters. That means that an image of Korra — or any other graphically represented character — is subject to copyright." I was trying to say, successfully or not, that the trees have a unique character and are therefore protected, I did not go into as much detail, simply because I felt my post was long enough. If that was the source of confusion, I apologize. Apology accepted, and no offense intended (seriously, I mean not to offend though it might sound like I did; and sorry for my clumsy expressions, I'm not a native English speaker). However, I ask you to note that that something is or can be a subject to copyright does not in itself imply that copying it to new artistic means would infringe the given copyright. You could well be able to legally sell your fanfiction book. |
|
|
|
Post by sapientcoffee on Oct 16, 2012 17:08:25 GMT
See: 50 Shades of Grey
|
|
|
|
Post by Eversist on Oct 16, 2012 19:43:59 GMT
She supposedly changed enough (names, setting) to make what she did not illegal. There are plenty of Twilight fanfictions out there for sale digitally (I feel obligated to point out that I only know this because I read a really interesting article on this very topic) get away with it the very same way. I honestly still find it wrong on some level (maybe because I hate both series)... but if you think about it, if she just hadn't told anyone/it wasn't known that the story started off as a Twilight derivative/fan fiction, I doubt people would have much of a problem with it. Being inspired from something you read isn't a crime.... using someone's characters as your own and making money off of them is the crime. |
|
notacat
Full Member
That's not me, that's my late cat Mimi: I'm not nearly so cute
Posts: 188
|
Post by notacat on Oct 16, 2012 21:19:20 GMT
She supposedly changed enough (names, setting) to make what she did not illegal. There are plenty of Twilight fanfictions out there for sale digitally (I feel obligated to point out that I only know this because I read a really interesting article on this very topic) get away with it the very same way. I honestly still find it wrong on some level (maybe because I hate both series)... but if you think about it, if she just hadn't told anyone/it wasn't known that the story started off as a Twilight derivative/fan fiction, I doubt people would have much of a problem with it. Being inspired from something you read isn't a crime.... using someone's characters as your own and making money off of them is the crime. What seems to have steamed most of her erstwhile fans is that she rather cynically posted the original story for free, used their feedback to adjust it, then pulled it for publication, all the while making various rude comments about fandom which she thought would remain private. The fact that various online acquaintances of mine with more expertise have branded her description of BDSM culture (which pervades the whole book as far as I can tell) as "dangerously wrong" just cements my determination not to touch it with a 17-foot battle-lance. |
|
Ah, I see, my mistake.
