# Copyright Infringement By Artists



## collapsiblefox1 (Sep 2, 2009)

I think more needs to be said about the issue of copyright infringement by artists on FA, as I underestimated just how prevalent the problem is.

I've read DA threads, texts on copyright, discussions on fan art sites, and tried to come to an understanding of the complex legal issues, and what it boils down to is this:

1) All fan art is ILLEGAL, even if produced only for personal enjoyment, and neither sold nor commissioned. It is only tolerated by companies such as Disney and Bandai because they don't want to alienate their fan base, but its existence is STILL ILLEGAL. They can come down on you AT ANY TIME. Artists often attempt to argue that their work constitutes a "parody", but making such an argument in court is tricky and often fails.

2) Artists who sell work based on copyrighted characters are in FAR more danger than they realize. Over ten instances of infringement now constitutes a FELONY under current US copyright law. Just because they haven't noticed you so far doesn't mean that they WON'T. Don't worry: I'm an asshat, but I'm not going to report anyone here for any of their violations. I'd rather you decide to stop doing it on your own. Those who gleefully ignore the law, continuing to make money off of the hard work and creativity of others rather than coming up with their own ideas reveal what they are: sociopaths. Look up the word if you want.

3) Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, ISPs are NOT PROTECTED against the content they host. If someone decides to pursue it, FA *CAN BE HELD LIABLE* for hosting work that infringes on copyrighted material. This is something for the admins to think long and hard about.

People have become complacent, thinking that they will never have to settle their debts because, so far, there hasn't been a hammer dropped by any of the copyright holders. This isn't MP3s, people; there aren't SO MANY PEOPLE violating the law that it's tough to deal with all the offenders. There are a relatively small, easily prosecutable number of artists. Think about that. When they decide they're finally tired of it, it's to late to back out.

http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/920985/


----------



## Verin Asper (Sep 2, 2009)

collapsiblefox1 said:


> I think more needs to be said about the issue of copyright infringement by artists on FA, as I underestimated just how prevalent the problem is.
> 
> I've read DA threads, texts on copyright, discussions on fan art sites, and tried to come to an understanding of the complex legal issues, and what it boils down to is this:
> 
> ...


To that last part yes there are too many to prosecute, not on here but everywhere, tis the internet


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Sep 3, 2009)

And the fact that a mainstream, *corporate*, user generated content site like DeviantArt has an entire section dedicated to fan art doesn't _at all_ tell you that anyone who just wants to show their favorite cartoons/games/whatever some love is safe?

Give us a break and stop trying to insult our intelligence/baffle us with bullshit. If anything, having so much of it concentrated on a few sites as opposed to the mid-to-late 90's when it was scattered across tonnes of individual personal sites should've told us by now all we need to know. Actions speak louder than words, whether those words are yours, or those of a written law. They _took action_ back when it was mostly Geocities pages, and almost across the board, the public decided *they were dicks* to do it because most of them weren't taking *anything* from Disney or whoever. They were *giving:*

-*FREE* promotion
-*FREE* fan adoration
-*FREE* fans _period_ since some younger folks especially aren't likely to see an older intellectual property's trademarks on TV.

If anything, if they decided, for whatever reason they wanted to "crack down" on those *terrorists* all us uninformed, bleeding-heart, pinko bastards call *"fans"*, it'd be easier to do it now. And here's why. Because it wouldn't be about money now. It wasn't about money back then, either. It was about them being the sole owners of the right to so much as use *the name* of a popular character/show/movie/game etc, let alone create content using said name and other associated trademarks, whether or not they or anyone else make a bloody red cent from the efforts of it. *It's about ego*, more or less. And to satisfy their egos now wouldn't require them going on some witch hunt spanning the buttfuck fringes of cyberspace. It'd require a single notice to a single source - the owners of the site that literally _thousands_ of the offending images are hosted on. *If we were all imminently fucked, our collective asses would've bled a long time ago, don't you think?*

Yes, *genius*, I *do know* what a sociopath is. It's someone who thinks they own not just products and capital, but _people_, regardless of whether those people even need to be controlled for their own good or anyone elses. Corporations stopped doing what you're threatening us with where they're not because someone, most likely their own advisers, clued them in that what they were doing _before_ there was a deviantArt or a FurAffinity made them look somewhat sociopathic - or at least irrational and paranoid, which are key traits of a sociopath.

*The only way* I could see what you're saying having any merit is if the right person became aware of this "cub" art and pitched a fit and pulled the right strings for moral/ideological reasons. But again, would it even be worth the effort on their part to act? That's what guides every decision or lack thereof these people make.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Sep 3, 2009)

Oh, look--it's DA NEW SHERIFF IN TAHN.

Be gone, you anthropomorphized sphincter. Don't you realize everybody's laughing at you?


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Sep 3, 2009)

collapsiblefox1 said:


> reveal what they are: sociopaths.



See here's where your argument kind of makes you seem like a dick...


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Sep 3, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> See here's where your argument kind of makes you seem like a dick...



Seconded. For one thing, I fancy myself something of a sociopath, and yet I've never drawn a single piece of fanart. For another, it's not like they're claiming these characters as their own. The main reason Disney et al. aren't cracking down on fanart is not that they wish to avoid alienating their fanbase or anything like that, it's that they _just don't give a damn_--they aren't losing money, and they're actually getting free advertising. A close second is that they pretty much can't win on the charges' own merit. Help me out here, greymuzzles--didn't Dreamworks try to sue Klaus Doberman for drawing Balto smut or something along those lines? Well, I'm pretty sure he's still around.

Anyway, FA's not like deviantART, where there's a print shop and subscriptions and pretty much bugger all in place to stop people from scamming that way. It's also still not corporate-owned.


----------



## Ilayas (Sep 3, 2009)

Hey OP, I heard the sky was falling care to comment?


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Sep 3, 2009)

I read your page and I have come to the conclusion that you are a fucking gimmick

Y/N?


----------



## Stratelier (Sep 3, 2009)

collapsiblefox1 said:


> 3) Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, ISPs are NOT PROTECTED against the content they host. If someone decides to pursue it, FA *CAN BE HELD LIABLE* for hosting work that infringes on copyrighted material. This is something for the admins to think long and hard about.


Take a closer look at the DMCA; *if* an ISP is served a proper DMCA ceast & desist notice, they *do* have protection against liability if they remove the content which was cited as infringing.  So the real question is whether the claimant serves a notice or simply takes them straight to court.

Fan art is a legally murky area to begin with, but the reasons companies don't _usually_ sue for simple fanart are already stated.  Not to mention that the average fanart satisfies about half of the criteria that legally define Fair Use.


----------



## ArielMT (Sep 3, 2009)

collapsiblefox1 said:


> I think more needs to be said about the issue of copyright infringement by artists on FA, as I underestimated just how prevalent the problem is.



It's an interesting conundrum, aye.



collapsiblefox1 said:


> I've read DA threads, texts on copyright, discussions on fan art sites, and tried to come to an understanding of the complex legal issues, and what it boils down to is this:



Have you read the texts of the laws and treaties themselves?  Or just discussions about them, with or without the occasional excerpts?



collapsiblefox1 said:


> 1) All fan art is ILLEGAL, even if produced only for personal enjoyment, and neither sold nor commissioned. It is only tolerated by companies such as Disney and Bandai because they don't want to alienate their fan base, but its existence is STILL ILLEGAL. They can come down on you AT ANY TIME. Artists often attempt to argue that their work constitutes a "parody", but making such an argument in court is tricky and often fails.



Claims can only be brought in court by copyright owners and their attorneys.  Most fan art falls under a principle called Fair Use.  Fan art on Web sites is akin to posting drawings on a digital refrigerator; it's been argued, and it's still being argued, by the very companies you cited among others.



collapsiblefox1 said:


> 2) Artists who sell work based on copyrighted characters are in FAR more danger than they realize. Over ten instances of infringement now constitutes a FELONY under current US copyright law. Just because they haven't noticed you so far doesn't mean that they WON'T. Don't worry: I'm an asshat, but I'm not going to report anyone here for any of their violations. I'd rather you decide to stop doing it on your own. Those who gleefully ignore the law, continuing to make money off of the hard work and creativity of others rather than coming up with their own ideas reveal what they are: sociopaths. Look up the word if you want.



Copyright infringement was never anything less under US law, even at the nation's founding.



collapsiblefox1 said:


> 3) Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, ISPs are NOT PROTECTED against the content they host. If someone decides to pursue it, FA *CAN BE HELD LIABLE* for hosting work that infringes on copyrighted material. This is something for the admins to think long and hard about.



17 USC 512 says otherwise.  Sources:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512 - 17 USC 512
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/512.html - 17 USC 512
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=105_cong_bills&docid=f:h2281enr.txt.pdf [PDF] - DMCA as passed by both Houses

The admins already know, and they *have* thought long and hard about it.



collapsiblefox1 said:


> People have become complacent, thinking that they will never have to settle their debts because, so far, there hasn't been a hammer dropped by any of the copyright holders. This isn't MP3s, people; there aren't SO MANY PEOPLE violating the law that it's tough to deal with all the offenders. There are a relatively small, easily prosecutable number of artists. Think about that. When they decide they're finally tired of it, it's to late to back out.
> 
> http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/920985/



Before you decide to go take the law into your own hands, you should be versed enough in the law to ensure courts agree you're doing the right thing, and not crusading against fair-use fan art.

Edit: Welcome to FA Forums!


----------



## Corto (Sep 3, 2009)

I use *bold *to *show emphasis.*


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Sep 3, 2009)

Corto said:


> I use *bold *to *show emphasis.*



I use _italics_ too. But hey, it could be worse. I could need not just bold, but colors to show a fucking status symbol that just confuses people more than tells them anything important.


----------



## ArielMT (Sep 3, 2009)

DON'T FORGET CRUISE CONTROL. :V


----------



## Verin Asper (Sep 3, 2009)

ArielMT said:


> DON'T FORGET CRUISE CONTROL. :V


as long its not Tom cruise control


----------



## Grimfang (Sep 3, 2009)

Oh god.. you're here too now? You're a self-admitted troll, and present these KEEERAAAAZY arguments. You're either really dumb, or really good. I can't tell if you're serious when you make your opinions into "[WORDS] by which must be adhered!"



ArielMT said:


> _Lots of reason and words_



This ^



Rigor Sardonicus said:


> Oh, look--it's DA NEW SHERIFF IN TAHN.



*cough* c:


----------



## Aurali (Sep 3, 2009)

bwahahahaahahahahahahahahah... oh god... oh god... 

oh fricking god... That really was worth the laugh.


----------



## rednec0 (Sep 3, 2009)

collapsiblefox1 said:


> LOL I TROLL U!


 Seriously; corporations won't give a damn unless the "whatcharacter (c) whatevercompany" isn't on the work.


----------



## Stratelier (Sep 3, 2009)

Corto said:


> I use *bold *to *show emphasis.*


You may have overdid it.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Sep 3, 2009)

If only the OP's adenoidal tirades were collapsible...



Corto said:


> I move *away* from the mic to *breathe in.*


Fixed.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Sep 3, 2009)

I will never ever ever understand people who defend corporations for free. Is it that they have _so much faith_ in capitalism or is it just that they are disguising some other sort of quibble under the pretense of a much nobler and greater cause?

I think this thread smacks a lot of the latter.


----------



## collapsiblefox1 (Sep 3, 2009)

Crysix Corps said:


> To that last part yes there are too many to prosecute, not on here but everywhere, tis the internet



But that's the problem. Not _everyone on the internet_ is drawing copyright violating Digimon porn, etc... FA users are. There's only about 15,000 of them. That's a manageable number from a legal standpoint. Not every lawsuit has to deal with the number of violators of any given law when they file, they only have to deal with the ones they want to.


----------



## collapsiblefox1 (Sep 3, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> I will never ever ever understand people who defend corporations for free. Is it that they have _so much faith_ in capitalism or is it just that they are disguising some other sort of quibble under the pretense of a much nobler and greater cause?
> 
> I think this thread smacks a lot of the latter.



I think that everyone's ranting about corporations is just the predictable sour grapes talking. They're people, and refusing to see them as such invokes the sociopathic urge to depersonalize and dehumanize them so you can do what you want to them.

No, I'm trying to stop copyright violations on FA  because it endangers the site. I don't think that these artist's ability to draw whatever the hell they want should come before the need for furries to have places where they can come and be a furry. Let's say cons became overrun with people who were nudists and insisted that their right to be free and do their own thing came before your need to have cons. Would you want to ban them before cons started getting shut down?


----------



## collapsiblefox1 (Sep 3, 2009)

Corto said:


> I use *bold *to *show emphasis.*


You used bold! See, you know how to do it; you're not _a completely_ useless teenage loser who'll eventually get kicked out of their parents home for having no skills or ambition! Oh, but wait, you know how to drink energy drinks and play video games and watch G4 and use the interwebs and lolllllllllllllll.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Sep 3, 2009)

collapsiblefox1 said:


> Would you want to ban them before cons started getting shut down?



No, because I think the human body is a beautiful thing


----------



## CinnamonApples (Sep 3, 2009)

collapsiblefox1 said:


> Oh, but wait, you know how to drink energy drinks...



I think _everyone_ can drink energy drinks. Maybe not like them, but certainly able to drink them. Just sayin'.


----------



## Verin Asper (Sep 3, 2009)

collapsiblefox1 said:


> But that's the problem. Not _everyone on the internet_ is drawing copyright violating Digimon porn, etc... FA users are. There's only about 15,000 of them. That's a manageable number from a legal standpoint. Not every lawsuit has to deal with the number of violators of any given law when they file, they only have to deal with the ones they want to.


I would ask you to visit animefans who do draw the digimon pron, and oh not only the humans but Digimon/Human relations too.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Sep 3, 2009)

collapsiblefox1 said:


> You used bold! See, you know how to do it; you're not _a completely_ useless teenage loser who'll eventually get kicked out of their parents home for having no skills or ambition! Oh, but wait, you know how to drink energy drinks and play video games and watch G4 and use the interwebs and lolllllllllllllll.


Whoa there, Sheriff...


----------



## Surgat (Sep 3, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> I will never ever ever understand people who defend corporations for free. Is it that they have _so much faith_ in capitalism or is it just that they are disguising some other sort of quibble under the pretense of a much nobler and greater cause?
> 
> I think this thread smacks a lot of the latter.



In general, I bet it's usually the former. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome 

It's kind of like when ordinary subjects defended their monarch and aristocrat overlords. Like in Tsarist Russia, how peasants would call their Czar the "Little Father," turn over to the secret police anyone who tried to get them to revolt, and excused any government wrongdoing as "he (the king) just doesn't know what his inferiors are doing."


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Sep 3, 2009)

collapsiblefox1 said:
			
		

> I think that everyone's ranting about corporations is just the predictable sour grapes talking. They're people, and refusing to see them as such invokes the sociopathic urge to depersonalize and dehumanize them so you can do what you want to them.



No. Corporate entities are *not people*. They are made up _of_ people, _by_ people, and depend _on_ people to exist, but they are _not_ people. However, the people who hold the cards in any large corporation have proven time and time again that they have no qualms with depersonalizing and dehumanizing *us* for their own gain, which is the defining characteristic of a sociopath. They do it for one of two reasons: either they themselves are sociopaths, or they're doing another's bidding out of fear, and the person they work for is a sociopath.

The only reason the corporate entity even exists is to justify the urges of the sociopath. Whereas at one time these people would've been clergymen and feudal lords convincing themselves every fucked up action is motivated by their loyalty to "the church/the king/god", nowadays it's all for "the company/the shareholders".

So no matter what way you slice it, yeah, there's some mental gymnastics going on, but a lot less on our part than theirs. I don't worship false gods.


----------



## Surgat (Sep 3, 2009)

Wolf-Bone said:


> No. Corporate entities are *not people*. They are made up _of_ people, _by_ people, and depend _on_ people to exist, but they are _not_ people. However, the people who hold the cards in any large corporation have proven time and time again that they have no qualms with depersonalizing and dehumanizing *us* for their own gain, which is the defining characteristic of a sociopath. They do it for one of two reasons: either they themselves are sociopaths, or they're doing another's bidding out of fear, and the person they work for is a sociopath.
> 
> The only reason the corporate entity even exists is to justify the urges of the sociopath. Whereas at one time these people would've been clergymen and feudal lords convincing themselves every fucked up action is motivated by their loyalty to "the church/the king/god", nowadays it's all for "the company/the shareholders".
> 
> So no matter what way you slice it, yeah, there's some mental gymnastics going on, but a lot less on our part than theirs. I don't worship false gods.



He's just trolling. Nobody's actually crazy enough to think that corporate person-hood is anything other than a purely legal construct or fiction, and that not seeing them as people constitutes a deficiency of empathy. It's especially obvious since corporations are often likened to sociopaths.


----------



## Armaetus (Sep 3, 2009)

I wonder if the OP has pulled this crap over at DeviantArt too..


----------



## Firehazard (Sep 3, 2009)

collapsiblefox1 said:


> You used bold! See, you know how to do it; you're not _a completely_ useless teenage loser who'll eventually get kicked out of their parents home for having no skills or ambition! Oh, but wait, you know how to drink energy drinks and play video games and watch G4 and use the interwebs and lolllllllllllllll.



Wow, did you just get offended by someone who's mocking a completely different person in the thread (who's even arguing with you), thinking instead that they're mocking _you_ for something you didn't even do?

I do believe you did.

And I do believe we're done here.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Sep 3, 2009)

Surgat said:


> He's just trolling. Nobody's actually crazy enough to think that corporate person-hood is anything other than a purely legal construct or fiction, and that not seeing them as people constitutes a deficiency of empathy. It's especially obvious since corporations are often likened to sociopaths.



Sorry Surgat, but some of the places I've lived/worked in the past proved otherwise. Maybe you just don't see it because maybe in your country people are more sophisticated and don't reveal as much of themselves. Or maybe they're just not as blunt about it. But there truly are people who see corporations as the oppressed and not the oppressor, and who will blame everyone, including themselves when their wages are cut, their jobs downsized/exported, or a corporation they work for does something to make their lives/jobs more difficult than they already were. They'll make excuses for the company, say they really are doing their best and try to make it sound like their corporate kings are suffering right along with them. And they'll throw other employees under the bus or go home and take it out on their spouse/kids/roommates if they absolutely can no longer bottle up their rage anymore. But whatever they do, they'll never bite the hand that feeds them.

And I'm no better, because I myself did this a few times. Like the old Biblical God of Abraham, they rule by fear. And like the 6,600 niggas crucified along the Appian Way, we're surrounded by what amounts to an underclass of homeless/jobless people of various shades of brown, disenfranchised natives, mentally unhinged people that they won't just lock up for their own good and other sundry sketchbags, all of whom serve a dual purpose to be our scapegoat and keep us sucking the corporate cock, lest we lose our income/home and wind up like them.

So no, this is not just fiction, legal constructs and internet trolling. This is reality. So when someone pulls this Libertarian Fascist bullshit, I don't care what purpose it serves. I'm going to make it serve my purpose, which is to address an elephant in our room that frankly half you motherfuckers probably don't even know exists, and the other half are the ones defending them for real - in your own life even if you're not doing it here.


----------



## Aurali (Sep 3, 2009)

Wolf-Bone said:


> No. Corporate entities are *not people*. They are made up _of_ people, _by_ people, and depend _on_ people to exist, but they are _not_ people.



_Legally_ speaking. they are... at least in the United States.


----------



## ArielMT (Sep 3, 2009)

OP noted mainside that he found new information about copyright law.  I asked for links to this new information, and he provided three links.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Sep 3, 2009)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Sorry Surgat, but some of the places I've lived/worked in the past proved otherwise. Maybe you just don't see it because maybe in your country people are more sophisticated and don't reveal as much of themselves. Or maybe they're just not as blunt about it. But there truly are people who see corporations as the oppressed and not the oppressor, and who will blame everyone, including themselves when their wages are cut, their jobs downsized/exported, or a corporation they work for does something to make their lives/jobs more difficult than they already were. They'll make excuses for the company, say they really are doing their best and try to make it sound like their corporate kings are suffering right along with them. And they'll throw other employees under the bus or go home and take it out on their spouse/kids/roommates if they absolutely can no longer bottle up their rage anymore. But whatever they do, they'll never bite the hand that feeds them.
> 
> And I'm no better, because I myself did this a few times. Like the old Biblical God of Abraham, they rule by fear. And like the 6,600 niggas crucified along the Appian Way, we're surrounded by what amounts to an underclass of homeless/jobless people of various shades of brown, disenfranchised natives, mentally unhinged people that they won't just lock up for their own good and other sundry sketchbags, all of whom serve a dual purpose to be our scapegoat and keep us sucking the corporate cock, lest we lose our income/home and wind up like them.
> 
> So no, this is not just fiction, legal constructs and internet trolling. This is reality. So when someone pulls this Libertarian Fascist bullshit, I don't care what purpose it serves. I'm going to make it serve my purpose, which is to address an elephant in our room that frankly half you motherfuckers probably don't even know exists, and the other half are the ones defending them for real - in your own life even if you're not doing it here.


...so, I'm in neither half, then?
Does that make me an outlier, or statistically nonexistent?


----------



## TehSean (Sep 3, 2009)

I think the thread ended at Wolf Bone's very first reply readable here:

http://forums.furaffinity.net/showpost.php?p=1191019&postcount=3


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 3, 2009)

-Devil's Advocate-

If any artist was profiting off of any Trademarked characters, then yes it could fall under Copyright laws..
The artist would be under fire, not the site.

But anyway, OP's a tool troll.


----------



## collapsiblefox1 (Sep 3, 2009)

Firehazard said:


> Wow, did you just get offended by someone who's mocking a completely different person in the thread (who's even arguing with you), thinking instead that they're mocking _you_ for something you didn't even do?
> 
> I do believe you did.
> 
> And I do believe we're done here.



Considering he didn't quote from the post he was replying to, and the fact that my OP contained bold, it was a fair assumption that I was the one being mocked. I'm a little gunshy right now, as 99% of the people responding to my journals and this post are being hostile. My apologies if I misread the post's intent.


----------



## TehSean (Sep 3, 2009)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> -Devil's Advocate-
> 
> If any artist was profiting off of any Trademarked characters, then yes it could fall under Copyright laws..
> The artist would be under fire, not the site.




Hmmm! I CAN THINK OF A COUPLE.


----------



## collapsiblefox1 (Sep 3, 2009)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Sorry Surgat, but some of the places I've lived/worked in the past proved otherwise. Maybe you just don't see it because maybe in your country people are more sophisticated and don't reveal as much of themselves. Or maybe they're just not as blunt about it. But there truly are people who see corporations as the oppressed and not the oppressor, and who will blame everyone, including themselves when their wages are cut, their jobs downsized/exported, or a corporation they work for does something to make their lives/jobs more difficult than they already were. They'll make excuses for the company, say they really are doing their best and try to make it sound like their corporate kings are suffering right along with them. And they'll throw other employees under the bus or go home and take it out on their spouse/kids/roommates if they absolutely can no longer bottle up their rage anymore. But whatever they do, they'll never bite the hand that feeds them.
> 
> And I'm no better, because I myself did this a few times. Like the old Biblical God of Abraham, they rule by fear. And like the 6,600 niggas crucified along the Appian Way, we're surrounded by what amounts to an underclass of homeless/jobless people of various shades of brown, disenfranchised natives, mentally unhinged people that they won't just lock up for their own good and other sundry sketchbags, all of whom serve a dual purpose to be our scapegoat and keep us sucking the corporate cock, lest we lose our income/home and wind up like them.
> 
> So no, this is not just fiction, legal constructs and internet trolling. This is reality. So when someone pulls this Libertarian Fascist bullshit, I don't care what purpose it serves. I'm going to make it serve my purpose, which is to address an elephant in our room that frankly half you motherfuckers probably don't even know exists, and the other half are the ones defending them for real - in your own life even if you're not doing it here.



I am *not against* fan art. Mentioning that it's illegal is simply something I discovered in the course of looking into the matter. The reason I'm against commisioned art of copyrighted characters is that it jeopardizes FA. It's just like the zoophilic content and the underage users: every time you identify a threat, you have to do something about it yourselves before someone does something about it for you. I think everyone would be sorely pissed if they woke up one morning to discover the front page replaced by a message stating that FA is down until it resolves a legal issue.

For the record, I HATE corporations. But saying that THEIR crimes gives you an excuse to commit your own starts you down the slippery slope, and I'd rather have the right to bitch than be a hypocrite.

A CORPORATION didn't come up with these characters, ARTISTS did. Don't lose sight of that. The work may be OWNED by corporations, but an artist either has a right to protect their work or they don't. If someone here had a copyrighted character, I'd defend their right to protect their work just as much as Disney's right to protect its own. Just because corporations have better lawyers than FA artists doesn't mean the work _shouldn't be protected_. To say that the little guys deserve more rights than the big guys is just a bullshit reversal of what's ALREADY a bullshit situation.


----------



## El Furicuazo (Sep 3, 2009)

I do understand all of the legitimate points pointed out in this discussion, but I'd also like to know the personal opinion of some of the artists that came up with the copyright infringed art concepts (not that I'm against or in favor of legal action being taken about the issue).  I do admit I have made fanart, you can see it right in this post, although I do not profit from it.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Sep 3, 2009)

collapsiblefox1 said:


> I am *a troll.*


Condens'd.


----------



## DarkChaos (Sep 3, 2009)

Have you ever jaywalked or used an expired coupon?


----------



## tsawolf (Sep 3, 2009)

The Digital Millenium Copyright Act, as much as I detest it, gives online service providers such as FurAffinity (in this case technically, Ferrox Art, LLC) safe harbor from copyright infringement lawsuits, as long as we comply with the requirements for DMCA take-down notices.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Sep 3, 2009)

In reverse order, because I'm so fucking _avante garde_ like that.



			
				collapsiblefox1 said:
			
		

> For the record, I HATE corporations. But saying that THEIR crimes gives you an excuse to commit your own starts you down the slippery slope, and I'd rather have the right to bitch than be a hypocrite.



First off, there's laws defining what is and isn't a crime, and then there's *justice*. It's pretty disturbing to even live in this world when you develop even the most minor concept of how often and how little the two concepts mesh. But there's no "slippery slope" to be had. No one here is arguing that some sketchy, fringey fan artist should be able to compete with a massive corporate entity using trademarks that they own. Such an argument would be moot anyway because they really don't stand much of a chance even if they have delusions to the contrary as long as their work is relegated to a site like this or deviantArt and/or a website on the fringes of cyberspace. It's a cliched expression, but it rings true that it takes money to make money (publishing, printing, distribution, and don't even get me started on something requiring a more collaborative effort like a movie, game or even a half-decent book). These people you say you're worried about threatening FurAffinity's legal safety all of a sudden (frankly, I think you're full of shit there) tend be deficient in ambition, know-how and funds. They pose no threat to the owners, ergo, sites like this don't have to do much more than they already do to cover their ass when it comes to things like fan art.

Also, I find it interesting that an even more mainstream, more corporate site like YouTube, which has a much more incestuous relationship with big business seems to only be required to take copyrighted _music_ out of videos that feature video content that's _also_ legally owned by someone else. When you were thinking up/writing up this crap, did it ever occur to you that they're so focused on the music and not the imagery because the individual songs can be bought online but the pictures/clips can't or already available for free?

Again, money is the sole motivator now that their advisers have, smartly, _advised_ them to put their egos to the side _just a tad_ when going after copyright thieves. If I put a whole album or even a single song on the internet, yeah, I'm taking potential revenue opportunities from them. If I post the album cover/draw fan art of the performers, that's free advertising for them, and it'd actually be stupid on their part to flex their corporate cock muscles to stop me from doing that when that's taken into consideration.




			
				collapsiblefox1 said:
			
		

> A CORPORATION didn't come up with these characters, ARTISTS did. Don't lose sight of that. The work may be OWNED by corporations, but an artist either has a right to protect their work or they don't.



The artist is almost always already working for the company when they create the character(s), and in most cases, they don't even have that much creative influence in the style or design of the character. It's someone elses "vision". The artist is just *a wrist*. They're hired for their physical/mental ability to draw, and little else. In a lot of cases, the "visionary" who comes up with the initial idea for the character is a writer and/or director, who _also_ is working for the company under the general direction from the owners of the company that are something amounting to "come up with something that'll compete with/capitalize on whatever the trend is now".

TL;DR: A single character is often a collaborative work. No single "artist" reaps the rewards of its design, but you can be damn sure that with a few *rare* exceptions, the artists involved recieve *zip* in royalties. And by the way, in the case of some older characters, *every single fucking person who had a hand in creating them, including the person who commissioned/green lit the project is dead!*



			
				TehSean said:
			
		

> I think the thread ended at Wolf Bone's very first reply readable here:
> 
> http://forums.furaffinity.net/showpo...19&postcount=3



Unfortunately people are obsessed with convincing themselves they're right, and a symptom of that illness is continuing to talk even after you've met a good counter-argument. Another symptom of that is shifting your rationale for holding a view expressed earlier in the argument in an attempt to save face.



			
				Eli said:
			
		

> Legally speaking. they are... at least in the United States.



So if the United States came up with a law that said apples fall *up* into the atmosphere instead of down to the earth, would the laws of the universe change for the United States' law? The laws of man don't change the laws of the universe. And according to *reality*, a person is, at the very least, *a human*, not a *concept* that exists nowhere outside of your bloodclaat head!


----------



## Stratelier (Sep 3, 2009)

DarkChaos said:


> Have you ever jaywalked or used an expired coupon?


I bought a box of Kellog's Frosted Flakes once.  There was an (expired) manufacturer's coupon sticker on the front.  Cashier rang up the coupon just the same.  I forgot to tell them they should have been checking the shelves and pulling the coupons off the other boxes.




collapsiblefox1 said:


> Mentioning that it's illegal is simply something I discovered in the course of looking into the matter. The reason I'm against *commisioned art of copyrighted characters* is that it jeopardizes FA.


Bolding is mine for emphasis.  Did you mention that in your OP, or did it get lost among all the rhetoric?

There is a fine line (if any at all) between "commissioned" and "commercial" work with respect to the _money exchanged for a product or service performed_.  That can constitute damages on which to fuel a court case.

Speaking of copyright, one of the rights held by the originator is the right to control how the work is used and distributed; so yes, fanart is a technical violation of the right because it is extra usage and distribution of the source without the originator's consent.



> A CORPORATION didn't come up with these characters, ARTISTS did. Don't lose sight of that. The work may be OWNED by corporations, but an artist either has a right to protect their work or they don't.


Unfortunately, corporations have a nasty tendency to *claim ownership of any and everything their artists create*, almost as a condition of employment.  E.g: Mattel vs. Bratz

Corporations don't own your soul, they just demand ownership of everything that comes out of it


----------



## DarkChaos (Sep 3, 2009)

Stratadrake said:


> I bought a box of Kellog's Frosted Flakes once.  There was an (expired) manufacturer's coupon sticker on the front.  Cashier rang up the coupon just the same.  I forgot to tell them they should have been checking the shelves and pulling the coupons off the other boxes.


The law is the law, and you've broken the law!  How can you sleep at night, knowing you're a fraudster?

P.S. You're a sociopath too

...trolling's harder than it looks.


----------



## Aurali (Sep 4, 2009)

Wolf-Bone said:


> So if the United States came up with a law that said apples fall *up* into the atmosphere instead of down to the earth, would the laws of the universe change for the United States' law? The laws of man don't change the laws of the universe. And according to *reality*, a person is, at the very least, *a human*, not a *concept* that exists nowhere outside of your bloodclaat head!


Ya know, your choice of words to emphasize has always confused me.
 However I do agree that cooperation don't have a real human body, but in the context of this conversation, a corporation is a legal representative, IE a person with rights as a person.





Stratadrake said:


> Unfortunately, corporations have a nasty tendency to *claim ownership of any and everything their artists create*, almost as a condition of employment.  E.g: Mattel vs. Bratz
> 
> Corporations don't own your soul, they just demand ownership of everything that comes out of it



Retarded as it sounds... I took a break from everything creative during my internship, /just because/ I was contracted to give the rights to anything creative to the company. Though it was great experience.


----------



## LizardKing (Sep 4, 2009)

durpa durpa doop doop durpa durrrrrrrrp.

they see him trollin'

they hatin'

(they respondin' anyway)


----------



## Stratelier (Sep 4, 2009)

Eli said:


> Retarded as it sounds... I took a break from everything creative during my internship, _just because_ I was contracted to give the rights to anything creative to the company. (Though it was great experience.)


Yeah.  I don't think I could work under such a contract myself, unless said contract also contained a "Free Time is Me Time" clause.  Y'know, something along the lines of being able to keep rights to anything created "off the clock" (e.g: days off) .



DarkChaos said:


> The law is the law, and you've broken the law!  How can you sleep at night, knowing you're a fraudster?


I dunno, maybe because if somebody goes through one of OUR checkstands (I work at a grocery store too!) with an expired store coupon we have to honor it because we are the ones who should've noticed it and pulled them?  So the question is, would I have still purchased those Frosted Flakes if I hadn't noticed the coupon?


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Sep 4, 2009)

LizardKing said:


> durpa durpa doop doop durpa durrrrrrrrp.
> 
> they see him trollin'
> 
> ...



That's a surprisingly catchy way of saying "Y'all niggas postin' in a troll thread". I approve.


----------



## TehSean (Sep 4, 2009)

He's not a troll. You're just saying he is because he's threatening your Toadstool porn.


----------



## Ash-Fox (Sep 4, 2009)

collapsiblefox1 said:


> 3) Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, ISPs are NOT PROTECTED against the content they host. If someone decides to pursue it, FA *CAN BE HELD LIABLE* for hosting work that infringes on copyrighted material. This is something for the admins to think long and hard about.


I think you need to read about the safe harbour provisions.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Sep 4, 2009)

TehSean said:


> He's not a troll. You're just saying he is because he's threatening your Toadstool porn.



Actually, we're saying he is because he's obnoxious, loud, arrogant, and _always wrong_. If one is going to try to do the admins' job for them, one should at least have the decency to be _right_ most (if not all) of the time, no?


----------



## TehSean (Sep 4, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> Actually, we're saying he is because he's obnoxious, loud, arrogant, and _always wrong_. If one is going to try to do the admins' job for them, one should at least have the decency to be _right_ most (if not all) of the time, no?



Hey let's not get off topic. This is about whether or not people selling commissions of copyrighted material they don't own should be blanketed by deliberate ignorance by the administration or not.


----------



## Devious Bane (Sep 4, 2009)

collapsiblefox1 said:


> I think more needs to be said about the issue of copyright infringement by artists on FA, as I underestimated just how prevalent the problem is.
> 
> I've read DA threads, texts on copyright, discussions on fan art sites, and tried to come to an understanding of the complex legal issues, and what it boils down to is this:
> 
> *1) All fan art is ILLEGAL*


Apparently someone fails to understand the terms of "Fair Use."

_Common Sense ensues now:_ If anything comes to be called under a lawsuit, it will quickly be removed and the user warned/banned. As far as I've seen, FA hasn't be sued yet and/or isn't dealing with such things at the moment.

Otherwise, it is found by an user/administrator to be unacceptable and thus, reported/removed.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Sep 4, 2009)

TehSean said:


> Hey let's not get off topic. This is about whether or not people selling commissions of copyrighted material they don't own should be blanketed by deliberate ignorance by the administration or not.


You started it when you did your little quip about Toadstool porn, buddy boy. And the fact of the matter is that none of what he brought up is actually _illegal_ to begin with.


----------



## kitetsu (Sep 4, 2009)

If it wasn't for fanart, I wouldn't know about Avatar: The Last Airbender now, would I?

Okay sheriff, let's see you run a company for a week and see if your claim holds out.


----------



## ArielMT (Sep 4, 2009)

OP's journal has certainly gotten interesting in the last few hours.

Somehow, I get the feeling he doesn't want to answer my questions anymore.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Sep 4, 2009)

ArielMT said:


> OP's journal has certainly gotten interesting in the last few hours.
> 
> Somehow, I get the feeling he doesn't want to answer my questions anymore.



He reported me for something about harassment and racially derogatory comments. I think he's more likely to get banned over this bullshit than anything I've said.


----------



## kitetsu (Sep 4, 2009)

ArielMT said:


> OP's journal has certainly gotten interesting in the last few hours.
> 
> Somehow, I get the feeling he doesn't want to answer my questions anymore.



Maybe because you were too vitriolic. :I


----------



## Armaetus (Sep 4, 2009)

I want to see some staff responses to this wacko OP.


----------



## ArielMT (Sep 4, 2009)

Wolf-Bone said:


> He reported me for something about harassment and racially derogatory comments. I think he's more likely to get banned over this bullshit than anything I've said.



I thought it was a bit on the tasteless side but not near bad enough to be reported.  Did he actually report it, or did he just say he did?



kitetsu said:


> Maybe because you were too vitriolic. :I



Were my observations really so acidic?  I was honestly expecting him to clarify his choice of links to support his cause, not descend so quickly into a weak personal insult. 



Glaice said:


> I want to see some staff responses to this wacko OP.



Nothing mainside yet, but from here in this thread a staffer did answer him:



tsawolf said:


> The Digital Millenium Copyright Act, as much as I detest it, gives online service providers such as FurAffinity (in this case technically, Ferrox Art, LLC) safe harbor from copyright infringement lawsuits, as long as we comply with the requirements for DMCA take-down notices.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Sep 4, 2009)

ArielMT said:


> I thought it was a bit on the tasteless side but not near bad enough to be reported.  Did he actually report it, or did he just say he did?



Me nuh respanse! Lickshot! Rudebwoy pick a bloodclaat battyman off at a distance!


----------



## Arshes Nei (Sep 5, 2009)

Devious Bane said:


> Apparently someone fails to understand the terms of "Fair Use."



Yeah I think you need to learn the term too.


----------



## Verin Asper (Sep 5, 2009)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Me nuh respanse! Lickshot! Rudebwoy pick a bloodclaat battyman off at a distance!


ok...I'm offended right there


----------



## Devious Bane (Sep 5, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> Yeah I think you need to learn the term too.


I would not have brought it up if I didn't know it(common sense).


----------



## ArielMT (Sep 5, 2009)

And the show's over mainside.  OP deleted his journals (including the one he opened this thread with) just before admins decided to ban him.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Sep 5, 2009)

Devious Bane said:


> I would not have brought it up if I didn't know it(common sense).



Which is lacking because you made too many assumptions with pulling out the "fair use" card, but time to /end thread


----------

