# Copyrighted Characters



## PurryFurry (Feb 11, 2014)

My question is about the drawing of copyrighted characters for money- basically, is it _technically_ legal?  When I say copyrighted characters, I'm talking about characters owned by big companies such as Pikachu, Simba, or Gomamon.  

I have seen many artists on FA draw characters such as these for commission monies, but from knowledge outside of FA I was under the impression that if you made money off of a copyrighted character, the company with the copyright could come after you for these monies and/or for penalties/damages.  (_IF_ they would actually spend the time to do this is another question, which is not what I'm asking.)

Now, I also realize that the laws on this are going to vary depending on your country of residence but I'm curious of your input regardless.  However, I'm mostly interested in US laws since that is where I live.


----------



## Kitsune Cross (Feb 11, 2014)

Legal or not, I don't think pokemon is going to demand you for selling a pic of pikachu


----------



## Xioneer (Feb 12, 2014)

Of course it isn't technically legal. Commercial Copyrights mean you need written permission from the copyright holder if you want to make any $ off of their IP. Unless they have provided a public permission thingie, of course. Creative Commons, right?

Anyway, it would cost the big companies much more $ than they would gain to chase down offenders. Besides, whether it is Fan Art or Commissioned work, every time one of their characters is drawn and uploaded to the Internet, it's free publicity.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Feb 12, 2014)

It probably isn't legal, but I doubt Disney will notice much less give two shits about people making money with Lion King porn.


----------



## rjbartrop (Feb 15, 2014)

PurryFurry said:


> My question is about the drawing of copyrighted characters for money- basically, is it _technically_ legal?  When I say copyrighted characters, I'm talking about characters owned by big companies such as Pikachu, Simba, or Gomamon.
> 
> I have seen many artists on FA draw characters such as these for commission monies, but from knowledge outside of FA I was under the impression that if you made money off of a copyrighted character, the company with the copyright could come after you for these monies and/or for penalties/damages.  (_IF_ they would actually spend the time to do this is another question, which is not what I'm asking.)
> 
> Now, I also realize that the laws on this are going to vary depending on your country of residence but I'm curious of your input regardless.  However, I'm mostly interested in US laws since that is where I live.



Marvel has taken to sending people to conventions to stop sketch artists from using their characters, so I wouldn't take the fact that some people haven't had lawyers talk to them to mean that it's never going to happen.


----------



## Tica (Feb 15, 2014)

This is VERY illegal and I absolutely refuse to do it myself. The closest I get is drawing original characters in cosplay.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Feb 15, 2014)

If it's illegal - a lot of people better delete all of their Naruto, Sonic, Bugs Bunny, and Superhero porn REAL fast. 

But I don't think it is. 

I seriously doubt Warner Brothers cares if I order a Bugs Bunny pinup from a starving artist - which shows him being manhandled by some guy.


----------



## sixfoot (Feb 15, 2014)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> If it's illegal - a lot of people better delete all of their Naruto, Sonic, Bugs Bunny, and Superhero porn REAL fast.
> 
> But I don't think it is.
> 
> I seriously doubt Warner Brothers cares if I order a Bugs Bunny pinup from a starving artist - which shows him being manhandled by some guy.



It's *completely illegal* but it's something they usually turn a blind eye to - not worth their lawyers time to send out 10 thousand cease-and-desists.

If someone is making a significant profit from conterfeit merch though? You can bet your ass they're on that.

Guys, you are breaking the law if you sell fan art. Morally I don't know if I have a problem with it, but it is illegal.


----------



## Staggard (Feb 19, 2014)

Some people say that it's just drawing "Fan Art" and that they aren't being paid for the CHARACTER, but for the time invested in art itself.  Seems like a super gray line >_>


----------



## nekokoi (Feb 19, 2014)

PurryFurry said:


> My question is about the drawing of copyrighted characters for money- basically, is it _technically_ legal?  When I say copyrighted characters, I'm talking about characters owned by big companies such as Pikachu, Simba, or Gomamon.
> 
> I have seen many artists on FA draw characters such as these for commission monies, but from knowledge outside of FA I was under the impression that if you made money off of a copyrighted character, the company with the copyright could come after you for these monies and/or for penalties/damages.  (_IF_ they would actually spend the time to do this is another question, which is not what I'm asking.)
> 
> Now, I also realize that the laws on this are going to vary depending on your country of residence but I'm curious of your input regardless.  However, I'm mostly interested in US laws since that is where I live.



First it depends on your countries respective copyright laws. Fair use may apply to fanart that is not paid for.Typically, any parodies are under fair use. So depending on the content it could be legal to sell it. Speak to a lawyer about it. More usually though, it's not legal to sell copyrighted materials that are not in the public domain.You can draw them; you just can't get paid for drawing someone else's copyrighted charchter because they have a monopoly on it.   Also, more famous characters are ignored to some extent because lawsuits are expensive and suing some smuck in the middle of nowhere you got maybe $20 for it, might not even cover the filing court costs.


----------



## Tica (Feb 19, 2014)

Staggard said:


> Some people say that it's just drawing "Fan Art" and that they aren't being paid for the CHARACTER, but for the time invested in art itself.  Seems like a super gray line >_>



They might say that, but it's bullshit. You can't make money off someone else's intellectual property, end of story, unless it is a clear and unequivocal parody.


----------



## Staggard (Feb 19, 2014)

Makes sense, Tica.  I'm still fuzzy on OCs even.. like an original character based off an arcanine..


----------



## Tica (Feb 19, 2014)

Staggard said:


> Makes sense, Tica.  I'm still fuzzy on OCs even.. like an original character based off an arcanine..



If the OC *is* a pokemon, or a neopet, or a redwall rat, or somehow requires someone else's intellectual property in order to exist, it's not really an OC, is it? I mean, a true original character is 100% original to the creator, not 50% original to the creator and 50% stolen from someone else's worldbuilding.

I mean, I make OCs to stick in fanfiction all the time, but I don't pretend that if I make a kickass charizard character that that character is actually my intellectual property.


----------



## SixtyfourTehLeet (Feb 19, 2014)

It's moral. In that case, who cares if it's illegal, especially under the already-twisted US copyright laws?


----------



## Kragith Zedrok (Feb 20, 2014)

I doubt nintendo or any other firm would surf a site like this just to hit people with copyright, yea the characters belong to whomever the company is but when you manipulate and change the sona of the character it makes it "partly" yours. 

As long as you don't use their logos your safe. 

I was hit with a infringement for something that was given to me as a prize from 343i (that virgin mobile thing) tried to print it (changed text but left original documentation the same) and they said it was copyright even though I had permission from 343i and virgin to print it. I gave up in the end, they wanted a signed document giving me permission to print and a notification from the heads of both companies. The law sucks sometimes, i hope it gets revised soon because its so dang dated. Just my thought anyway.


----------



## nekokoi (Feb 20, 2014)

FFox97 said:


> I doubt nintendo or any other firm would surf a site like this just to hit people with copyright, yea the characters belong to whomever the company is but when you manipulate and change the sona of the character it makes it "partly" yours.
> 
> As long as you don't use their logos your safe.
> 
> I was hit with a infringement for something that was given to me as a prize from 343i (that virgin mobile thing) tried to print it (changed text but left original documentation the same) and they said it was copyright even though I had permission from 343i and virgin to print it. I gave up in the end, they wanted a signed document giving me permission to print and a notification from the heads of both companies. The law sucks sometimes, i hope it gets revised soon because its so dang dated. Just my thought anyway.




I feel copyrights and patents as an idea is harmful to innovation and creativity. I believe that stop people from improving existing ideas and prevents people from their using property. To me, copyrights are absurd.How does one own an idea? Patents prevent people from using physical property as well.

I feel one should be able to sell a modified version of someone's else's work or even a reproduced version.


----------



## mysticfyre (Feb 20, 2014)

I remember a while back- Hasbro sued a girl who made pony plushies. She advertised them all over the place though and made a huge killing on them (like $700+ each).


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Feb 20, 2014)

mysticfyre said:


> I remember a while back- Hasbro sued a girl who made pony plushies. She advertised them all over the place though and made a huge killing on them (like $700+ each).



The thing is Hasbro also sells plushies, meaning she was directly cutting into their business on a relatively large scale. Most companies don't sell custom porn (or custom anything really) of their IP's so for the most part they don't care too much since it isn't really cutting into their potential profits.


----------



## Antumbra (Feb 20, 2014)

There is a lot of grey area with copyrighted characters.

There  are some instances where you can use a copyrighted character legally in a  commercial sense.  Parody pictures such as  http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17vqbpzs0gb7zjpg/ku-xlarge.jpg are  usually legal because it is a critique of the original, this one because  it critiques the poses of the Avengers characters.  If it is just a  character in your art style, that typically is illegal to sell (but not  always).

If it would normally be legal, but reduces the amount of  sales the original owner would normally sell, that also makes it  illegal.  For example, if I sold a piece of Krystal parody fanart that  would reduce the amount of posters Nintendo sells, then I'm doing it  illegally.  But, if I sold a piece of legal Krystal parody fanart that  was so terrible, it made the customer vomit and never want to buy  anything Krystal related again, that is not illegal.

Then it all  comes down to like everyone else has said, whether or not you are worth  the time and effort to prosecute.  If you sell more, that raises your  chances of a cease and desist letter.

Original characters are  legal as long as they don't contain names, logos, or other copyrighted  material.  If My Little Pony managed to copyright cutie marks, that  would then make it illegal to sell a pony character with one.


----------



## Kragith Zedrok (Feb 20, 2014)

nekokoi said:


> I feel copyrights and patents as an idea is harmful to innovation and creativity. I believe that stop people from improving existing ideas and prevents people from their using property. To me, copyrights are absurd.How does one own an idea? Patents prevent people from using physical property as well.
> 
> I feel one should be able to sell a modified version of someone's else's work or even a reproduced version.




Yea now that I look back at what I said you cannot own an idea, Facebook is a prime example. You can argue that it was your Idea and get paid because you wine about it but still no one cares. And yea you should be able to modify someone else's work to an extent. Technically when you draw something like for example pikachu but you color him red, make him fluffy and add dunno a hat and scarf, this makes the character yours right??? Yes and no, it makes it hard for them to tag you with copyright. If they do they are violating their own rules, take a look at the fair use, "educational" (lol) purpose doctrine. You do need to credit nintendo for the pikachu but lets say you change the shape, color, add clothing, and make the tail i don't know a fox tail, and don't call it a pikachu. Now its your character. 
Back to the doctrine, 


> The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes


The first point is broken in this land, people sell their art and use characters so technically its illegal. However this is like saying you have a dragon character and dragons are subjected to multiple copyright infringements because they are used in Games, movies, cartoons, etc... 

And the last bit of the doctrine:



> 1. Copyright protects the particular way authors have expressed themselves. "It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in a work.
> 2. The safest course is to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.
> When it is impracticable to obtain permission, you should consider avoiding the use of copyrighted material unless you are confident that the doctrine of fair use would apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine whether a particular use may be considered fair nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.



1. "It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in a work." A question I have is what does that mean? 
Does this mean that if you manipulate work IE, template and make it your own work its not subjected to copyright infringement? 

2. How in the world does anyone get permission without going insane. This is so frisking dated, people would rather draw their characters and deal with it. Copyright is as it states misusing the ORIGINAL content for distributive purposes, most people draw the sed characters differently (look at number 1.)

Huh???
"The Copyright Office can neither determine whether a particular use may be considered fair nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney." 

Just picking something apart, I might be totally wrong (don't kill me over it lol), thoughts? 

Full document: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html


----------



## Antumbra (Feb 20, 2014)

FFox97 said:


> Yea now that I look back at what I said you cannot own an idea, Facebook is a prime example. You can argue that it was your Idea and get paid because you wine about it but still no one cares. And yea you should be able to modify someone else's work to an extent. Technically when you draw something like for example pikachu but you color him red, make him fluffy and add dunno a hat and scarf, this makes the character yours right??? Yes and no, it makes it hard for them to tag you with copyright. If they do they are violating their own rules, take a look at the fair use, "educational" (lol) purpose doctrine. You do need to credit nintendo for the pikachu but lets say you change the shape, color, add clothing, and make the tail i don't know a fox tail, and don't call it a pikachu. Now its your character.





It's kinda like that, Facebook can copyright its own logo and certain features, but it can't copyright the idea of a social networking site.  Also transforming a pikachu by adding clothing and color is called a derivative work, which is just a step above copying.  While that character itself is yours, if Nintendo can prove it was based off of Pikachu it is illegal.  Honestly though if you change it enough they won't be able to tell.




			
				FFox97 said:
			
		

> Back to the doctrine,





			
				FFox97 said:
			
		

> The first point is broken in this land, people sell their art and use characters so technically its illegal. However this is like saying you have a dragon character and dragons are subjected to multiple copyright infringements because they are used in Games, movies, cartoons, etc...
> 
> Like the facebook thing, you can't copy a general use idea such as a dragon.  You can copyright a specific dragon character, but even that can be tough unless they are blatantly copying.
> 
> ...





			
				FFox97 said:
			
		

> FFox97 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Antumbra (Feb 20, 2014)

Good lord I butchered those quote tags...


----------



## Kragith Zedrok (Feb 20, 2014)

Sorry this topic is on my nerves right now lol,

How often does this become an issue in the furry community though? It can't be that often since I see people use characters from other franchises all the time, like I use an Elite named Rkar for my story. I could be subjected to copyright but I have the mentality that it won't happen since 343i has bigger issues to attend to. The only way I see companies acting out, like you said' is when the operation becomes an interference with business or a large scale operation. They could also lash out if they need the money. For example If nintendo was going bust and they needed quick cash to dig themselves out of debt, they could always troll furry pages and tag people with fines, take down websites, etc. Not that they would get anything, they would be waiting in line for most people. Plus if you think about it its "free advertising." When you see an image of a pokemon you directly refer to nintendo, this is product placement, same with elites from halo, garrus from mass effect, and so on...

So basically you can take a circle from their drawing but you have to draw something else... thats dumb. Google is bad at this rule as well, currently youtube is so butt hurt about users uploading gameplay with music, or criticizing commentary, they remove your video as a class act of copyright infringement. 

Photos are different, they should honestly allow people to make their own sonas from base characters. Again "free advertising"

What about fur suiters who make costumes of Lucario or some other big named characters from other franchises, how about a Garrus costume or a master chief costume, aren't they technically copyright, though in both photo and costuming your advertising their product, even if your selling it.

EDIT: Did the worms crawl out of the can lol


----------



## Antumbra (Feb 21, 2014)

FFox97 said:


> Sorry this topic is on my nerves right now lol,
> 
> How often does this become an issue in the furry community though? It  can't be that often since I see people use characters from other  franchises all the time, like I use an Elite named Rkar for my story. I  could be subjected to copyright but I have the mentality that it won't  happen since 343i has bigger issues to attend to. The only way I see  companies acting out, like you said' is when the operation becomes an  interference with business or a large scale operation. They could also  lash out if they need the money. For example If nintendo was going bust  and they needed quick cash to dig themselves out of debt, they could  always troll furry pages and tag people with fines, take down websites,  etc. Not that they would get anything, they would be waiting in line for  most people. Plus if you think about it its "free advertising." When  you see an image of a pokemon you directly refer to nintendo, this is  product placement, same with elites from halo, garrus from mass effect,  and so on...
> 
> ...



I've never heard of it being an issue, but I'm pretty new to the  community.  Most companies don't mind fan art and creating your own  characters, as long as they aren't giving bad publicity.  Really they  have much bigger problems to worry about, especially if the company goes  belly up.

Good news about the Youtube thing is a lot of game  developers are like how you describe, they like the free publicity.   Some even say if Youtube is giving you crap to email them and they will  give you permission to use it.

Fursuiters are technically  committing copyright infringement, but I doubt anyone cares unless the  maker of the suit is making a killing on them.  If you just make it for  yourself, it is just a costume.


----------



## Kragith Zedrok (Feb 21, 2014)

Antumbra said:


> I've never heard of it being an issue, but I'm pretty new to the  community.  Most companies don't mind fan art and creating your own  characters, as long as they aren't giving bad publicity.  Really they  have much bigger problems to worry about, especially if the company goes  belly up.



How would they know if it was giving them bad publicity, I mean most characters aren't drawn to make the company look bad, its just geared towards an adult audience, you could look at that in a way that makes it bad for them. Dunno xP 



Antumbra said:


> Good news about the Youtube thing is a lot of game  developers are like how you describe, they like the free publicity.   Some even say if Youtube is giving you crap to email them and they will  give you permission to use it.



Good to hear that, I was hit hard with this crap on my YT account, deleted those videos, I even made my own stuff and because I shared one line, ONE LINE of similar music it got hit with copyright. Game commentary with nintendo is bad, they attack mostly everyone. 



Antumbra said:


> Fursuiters are technically  committing copyright infringement, but I doubt anyone cares unless the  maker of the suit is making a killing on them.  If you just make it for  yourself, it is just a costume.



What are they going to do though, "get out of that suit its ours" lol. I know someone who makes thousands off of Garrus costumes, and other costumes like star wars. He's a private seller so I won't go naming him. 

But yea copyright laws need a lot of revision, although I think the general fear some people have is that when its revised it will specifically attack fan art, and remixes even more so.


----------



## Antumbra (Feb 21, 2014)

FFox97 said:
			
		

> How would they know if it was giving them bad publicity, I mean most characters aren't drawn to make the company look bad, its just geared towards an adult audience, you could look at that in a way that makes it bad for them. Dunno xP



It usually involves having an image they don't want with the brand.  A giant antro pikachu doing things to Misty would be an example.  Stuff like Mass Effect or Halo aren't going to mind stuff like violence.



			
				FFox97 said:
			
		

> Good to hear that, I was hit hard with this crap on my YT account, deleted those videos, I even made my own stuff and because I shared one line, ONE LINE of similar music it got hit with copyright. Game commentary with nintendo is bad, they attack mostly everyone.



Yea, nintendo is notorious for that crap and I have no clue why.




			
				FFox97 said:
			
		

> What are they going to do though, "get out of that suit its ours" lol. I know someone who makes thousands off of Garrus costumes, and other costumes like star wars. He's a private seller so I won't go naming him.
> 
> But yea copyright laws need a lot of revision, although I think the general fear some people have is that when its revised it will specifically attack fan art, and remixes even more so.



They wouldn't do much to the suiter, it would be more of telling the maker to stop, but really it is up to whether they feel like it is worth their time.

Yea, I think there was that one bill last year about copyrights that everyone was up in arms about, but I can't remember the details.


----------

