# Further discussion on (c)/trademark violations



## uncia2000 (Jan 4, 2006)

[ed. uncia2000]: copied posts from the "Report Harassment, etc." thread for any further discussions.
Unfortunately I managed to delete the originals in the process of doing so. :roll: Sincere apologies for that.

_@Pico: I couldn't find a copy of that post you made right in the middle of me moving/deleting all those. Sorry. _


(original thread starts here) 
======================= 
posted by: Trowelhands

Not sure if this is the right topic for it, but here goes: 

A user by the name of Runhurd has stolen a comic from an artist called Chibi Jen Hen from deviantART 

Chibi Jen's comic is located 
http://www.deviantart.com/view/22451977/ 

and then his version featuring exactly the same poses and expressions is located http://www.furaffinity.net/view/25638/ 

compare the two and you will see that Runhurd has totally ripped the comic off and put his own characters in it, the worst part about it is his denial of ripping it off (See his comments in the submission) 

please take adminstrative action. Thanks for your time. 

======================= 
======================= 
posted by: Kyrin

I have run into this before. Poses and expressions can not be "ripped off". As a matter of fact poses can not even be copyrighted. Only characters can be copyrighted. 

Now, someone could trace someone else's art and only slightly modify it, which could be grounds for throwing a fit. But if they change enough of the work, characters, dialogue, etc...by at least 50% it is still legal. Not cool or right, but still legal. 

I agree some credit to the inspiring artist should be given, but it isn't necessary nor mandated, more of a courtesy type thing. 

I recommend to anyone doing art to never use anyone else's drawn art as inspiration for your own if you never want to be accused of stealing someone else's idea. Because sooner or later you will, even if you never saw the picture in question before in your life. Why? Because the human body can only be put into so many postions, at one time or another someone is going to repeat someone else's pose postion. It's inevitable. 

For a long time I didn't even look at other people's art after a stupid arguement with Mousehouse. Since then I never use anyone else's art as a reference for a pose, only for character confirmation if I am doing art using that character. 

However, for many folks, especially those learning positions and basic drawing of furry characters tracing or copying someone else's work is part of learning how to draw it. If someone considers your art good enough to use as learning material or worth repeating using their characters you should feel flattered versus offended IMHO. 

Anyway best way to handle someone copying your stuff, is to mention in passing and in private...ever so politely that it resembles one you did, and to ask if were they influenced by your work. Be sincere and nice, then if they confirm that it was influenced, then ask, ASK, if they would mind mentioning it in the description. If you are polite and nice, most people will most likely be happy to give you credit for giving them the idea. If you are hostile and nasty well then, you deserve to be told to take a flying leap in the nearest dungheap. 

Calling them thieves, desparaging them in emails to their friends, and posting nasty accusations about them on your website without ever talking to them directly is NOT the way to handle your outrage. After they find out you are being nasty and then you send them a nastygram email demanding they give you credit or take down the art is also not recommended. And yes, I am describing behavior I have encountered personally. To this day I do not talk to, patronize, nor associate in any way with this person. They are no longer anyone I admire nor aspire to. Which is sad, because they are a good artist, just not a good person. 

Anyway, sorry if this turned into a rant, but when I got jumped on and hassled about swiping a pose and expression in my early days as a furry artist, I investigated the copyright laws throughly and found that poses and expressions are specifically not copyrightable. Read your copyright law if you aren't sure. 

Originally this exclusion was due to dance moves in ballet and other forms of dance. If you think about it, it makes sense. 

Basically play nice people, we're persecuted enough as it is, we don't need to be forming witch hunts against each other! Support each other, encourage each other and if you are very lucky you may make some really great friends who will save your ass when you need the help the most. 

Kyrin 

======================= 
posted by: Arshes Nei

Characters cannot be copyrighted. Period. 

======================= 
posted by: Schatten

Mickey Mouse. 

======================= 
posted by: uncia2000

per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act ? 

======================= 
posted by: 

Pinkuh

Wow.... Just... Wow... 

======================= 
posted by: uncia2000

<3s da pink kitsune of few words...  

_*chuckles* sry, boss! ^^_

======================= 
posted by: Arshes Nei

Mickey Mouse is a TRADEMARK. 

======================= 
posted by: Schatten

> uncia2000 wrote:
> per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act ? 

not necessarily. mm just comes to mind as the most popular example. 
disney, yeah. however after reading this it might not be the best example. 

"Many people have believed erroneously that the Mickey Mouse character is protected only by copyright. In fact, the Mickey Mouse character, like all major Disney characters, is protected as a trademark," 

also here: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-model 

======================= 
posted by: Arshes Nei

> also here: 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-model 

pwnd. 

Yeah, we were having this discussion last week on another thread. 

======================= 
posted by:  Schatten

oh? good for you. 

======================= 
posted by: Arshes Nei

Unfortunate for you then? 

It's just that many people keep putting in interjections for copyright, without actually studying and reading about it. This puts FA in a precarious position of adding rumors vs fact. 

Things need to be well researched so they can cover themselves, just as well. 

======================= 
posted by: Schatten

unfortunate, nah. :3 

whenever copyright issues are involved, it's due to the character (no pun intended) of the term that there will be disagreements. and it's not always the u.s. copyright which will apply. 

intellectual property. sketchy at best. 
on an international level often unfathomable. 8( 

======================= 
posted by: Arshes Nei

Depends on the Berne Treaty actually. 

Character designs are really too vague to fall under copyright law. The reason you can try for a trademark law is so that you can make it a set identity to help sell a product. However, beause they are costly, and the process is a bit more tedious getting a trademark really helps enforce your rights. 

======================= 
posted by: nobuyuki

off topic: furthermore, there's no such thing as "international law". The laws of your country are what govern you. Treaties are a thing a country agrees to, but enforcement of international agreements are never something you can claim to be a law, especially if not every country enforces them.

======================= 
posted by: uncia2000

Trademarked and copyrighted in this case. 

q.v. brief summary note in this AP article re. the Copyright Term Extension Act: 


> "Legal experts said it would be unlikely that Disney and other companies would suffer immediate harm if copyrights expired on their movies and characters.
> 
> Mickey Mouse, for instance, is not only a character but a corporate trademark, which never expire as long as they are in use.
> 
> Only the copyright on the Mickey portrayed in Disney's earliest films, such as 1928's "Steamboat Willie," would expire in the next few years. The more rounded, modern mouse familiar today is a later creation and would remain protected for several more years."



======================= 
posted by: Arshes Nei

That would be the features that ...well Feature Mickey Mouse. So the artworks that have his likeness are copyrighted, just like any work that you do that has your character is copyrighted. 

However, Mickey Mouse is an identity due to cross merchandising and just his overall simplified appearance with Disney. 

So that's to clarifiy by "copyrighted" He the character is still not copyrighted, it's just the featurettes and his image that is. Just like every Action Comics or Superman is copyrighted, however the Superman identity is a trademark. (Wonder how Clark Kent feels about that).  

======================= 
posted by: nobuyuki

that's correct. For every example you guys have referenced, it refers to the WORK that contains the character, not the character itself. That would mean, however, in relation to a painted over image, if you copied that image close enough, it would be a derivative work and therefore a copyright violation.

======================= 
posted by: Kyrin

Where do you get that characters can not be copyrighted? Haven't you ever watched cartoons, the studios who put out the films have in big letters at the end, characters copyright to the studio. 

Mickey Mouse is a prime example. In fact all Disney characters are protected by copyright. As are Warner Bros, Hanna Barbera, etc. 

If you draw artwork, do comics, write a story, your characters are copyright protected. 

Think anyone can come along and steal Sabrina, or Zig Zag...think again! 

They are copyright to Eric and Max. 

You have to ask permission to do fan art for both. 

That is because they own the copyright and have the right to decide. 

While some characters are public domain, or the studio producing them may not go after people for parodying them, you do notice that most artists using Disney or Warner Bros. characters also make a point to mention that those characters are copyright to those companies? There is a very good reason for that, if they don't they could get sued for copyright infringement. 

Perhaps you might want to go look up the copyright laws now. So you know your facts, versus making them up as you go along. 

Not even sure why I am wasting my breath here...likely you've made up your mind and are like my mother in law, impervious to outside influence. However I am stubborn and tend to try anyway.

Kyrin


----------



## Xax (Jan 4, 2006)

At first I thought that this topic was the next form of the growing "(c) is not ©" meme.

But now it kind of is!

On an on-topic note, please, just everyone read this: http://www.publaw.com/graphical.html


----------



## uncia2000 (Jan 4, 2006)

Thanks for the link, Xax.

... And before I forget: the previous discussion subthread (about a dozen posts) referred to by Arshes, above, was here - including Dragoneer's pointer to the "excellent write-up Brian Tiemann posted on lionking.org".


----------



## Pinkuh (Jan 4, 2006)

uncia2000 said:
			
		

> Thanks for the link, Xax.
> 
> ... And before I forget: the previous discussion subthread (about a dozen posts) referred to by Arshes, above, was here - including Dragoneer's pointer to the "excellent write-up Brian Tiemann posted on lionking.org".



GO TO BED ::Shakes fist::


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 4, 2006)

Kyrin said:
			
		

> Where do you get that characters can not be copyrighted? Haven't you ever watched cartoons, the studios who put out the films have in big letters at the end, characters copyright to the studio.
> 
> Mickey Mouse is a prime example. In fact all Disney characters are protected by copyright. As are Warner Bros, Hanna Barbera, etc.
> 
> ...



Please provide a more level headed response, than "you're like my mother-in-law" it doesn't really provide to researched information.

In response to your "where are you getting characters are not copyrighted"

I got this by actually studying the subject. I actually went to a school that trains you for the business side of art. I'm not perfect, but I didn't "assume" anything. If I don't know I ask others in the field, or I will research it from the source, since you can actually get copyright information online from the government.

A character is *NOT* copyright. They're considered too ambigious to be copyrighted. You can however, have your character trademarked, but remember, the reason for trademarks are to create a commercial identity. So when Disney *trademarks* its characters it is due to potential future earnings such as merchandising rights.

Do not confuse a creative work copyright with an commercial identity. Most of the characters that are a company's intellectual property however, the reason they can sue you for infringement has more to do wtih trademarks than just a ?.  They use a combination of both to promote the distinction of their identity (which is more of a trademark), as xax's article states.

But no, just because you create a character does it become an automatic copyright, that's why the article correctly summarizes how that process took place where characters became a merchandising identity.


----------



## Pico (Jan 4, 2006)

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html

"What does copyright protect?
Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section "What Works Are Protected." "

"How do I protect my idea?
Copyright does not protect ideas, concepts, systems, or methods of doing something. You may express your ideas in writing or drawings and claim copyright in your description, but be aware that copyright will not protect the idea itself as revealed in your written or artistic work. "

A character is technically an idea or concept; so while characters themselves are not copyrighted, the works that contain them are.


----------



## Damaratus (Feb 16, 2007)

Sorry for the brief interruption, please continue with the discussion.


----------



## nobuyuki (Feb 16, 2007)

wow.  Did this come from a thread I forgot about ages ago?  I can't believe she told _me_ to do _my_ homework.  A pretty bold statement from someone who if she had actually done it herself, would have immediately realized she was factually mistaken!  But I guess this occurred a long-ass time ago, so I must ask.  What's the context of this thread exactly?


----------



## Hanazawa (Feb 16, 2007)

Timestamps on the originals say Jan 2006. Why did you bump this, Damaratus? o.o


----------



## Arshes Nei (Feb 16, 2007)

Hanazawa said:
			
		

> Timestamps on the originals say Jan 2006. Why did you bump this, Damaratus? o.o



There was someone yelling about another user on this thread. Damaratus deleted the post. It was the other user that bumped the post, not Damaratus.


----------



## Hanazawa (Feb 16, 2007)

Ah k.

I'll stop bumping now too XD


----------



## Arshes Nei (Feb 16, 2007)

Well the benefit of bumping this thread it actually provides info on Copyrights  XD


----------



## Visimar (Feb 16, 2007)

Actually, I believe it was Inflamed-Iron who bumped it. At least, that was the post that had caused this to pop up on the New Posts thing before being deleted.

But really, wow. One year. Necromancy, anyone?


----------



## uncia2000 (Feb 16, 2007)

Yep, it was.

Bumping old threads with new valid/relevant content or to draw fresh parallels/connections with other live threads is AOK so long as that's done in a positive manner. (Not the case here, it goes without saying...).



			
				ArshesNei said:
			
		

> Well the benefit of bumping this thread it actually provides info on Copyrights  XD


True. And the reason this thread wasn't just permitted to vanish back into the pool.

However, since there is no apparent attempt at further new content/discussion here beyond that link, it might be best to copy/paste anything relevant across to that other current thread rather than continuing to wander aimlessly...

d.


----------



## Damaratus (Feb 19, 2007)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> ([size=xx-small]by the way I am going to delete this post, it's just apparently the Inflamed Iron post that was deleted previously, someone didn't explain to the user WHY it was deleted[/size])



I explained it perfectly to the user why his post was removed via PMs (I do that with all removed/deported posts).  He chose to disagree with the reasoning, while also reposting something on here yet again.

Will be dealing with this particular situation soon, but there is work to be done in real life.  My apologies for the the second interruption, it will be fixed.  Please everyone continue with the proper topic that was started, there is some very fine information on copyrights here, despite the fact that this thread was started some time ago.

As for everyone else.  Please do read up on the discussion in the forum before posting, it helps make sure that you (the user) know what everyone is talking about and where the thread is going.

Edit: Have cut out the unneeded interruption in this thread.  Please continue as normal.  Any questions about the removed off-topic posts feel free to note me.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Feb 19, 2007)

Damaratus said:
			
		

> Arshes Nei said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for the Clarification Damaratus. The user is agitating, since this really has nothing to do with copyright explanation in general, it should be taken to the harassment forums if anywhere.


----------



## Ahkahna (Feb 20, 2007)

Trademarks are indeed VERY very very costly. For now, I just hold the TM since I wasn't ever able to get up $4000 to pay for the registration. However, I can claim TM since I do plan to use 'Ahkahna' as a symbol involving my art business. I've had numerous character designs copyrighted, all of my taschevah copyrighted, (obviously just the designs) but the way I went about it was to do a complete character 'booklet'. In otherwords, turn arounds, poses, various angles, expressions, etc.

Having spoken with copyright and trademark lawyers and attorneys, I will say that it is a royal pain in the ass to get this type of thing done- mostly because of money and because of the fact that they try to get you to put your TM's on products you don't need right then and there. Very frustrating.


----------

