At 08:42 AM 10/24/2003 +0000, foxiekins wrote:
>--- In SkunkworksAMA_at_yahoogroups.com, David Parenteau wrote:
> >
> > You Cannot Copyright a Character. Period. Not possible.
> > Copyright law does not cover characters.
> >
>
>If the plushie is intended to be Natasha, that makes it a derivative
>work...
"Natasha" is not copyrighted, so, you cannot create a Derivative Work
simply on the basis of "Natasha". The derivative work would have to be a
derivative of a specific IMAGE of "Natasha", and would have to be a direct
copy translation, not a "Thing That Looks Like Natasha" or "Looks Like The
Skunk In This Picture". It would have to be "This is a Plush version of
precisely this picture."
>However, Copyright is the legal right to COPY something...
>If there were going to be many of them, copyright would come into it
>at some point...
Also not right. Making a SINGLE copy of something copyrighted without
permission and right violates copyright. However, as pointed out, this is
not a copy if a static finalized work. It is a new work based on character
concept and description, and is not a COPY of that description (A copy of a
description would be taking the words themselves.)
"A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works,
such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art
reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work
may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial
revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a
whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work"."
(US Copyright Law)
This is a derivative work based on "Natasha" as a concept, said concept
having been communicated through a copyrighted Visual Art work. However
the VA Work itself was not copied or derived from, simply the concept used
to create that work was.
> But, for a single, unique item, copyright doesn't
>apply by the very nature of copyright...
The single, unique item itself is not a copy of anything copyrightable, so
is not a violation of copyright. However the item itself is copyrighted,
and so an exact duplicate of it may not be made without the creator of that
item's permission.
>But I agree... Asking would still have been polite, Clayton...
Precisely. Regardless of all the legal ins and outs, asking and respect is
the critical thing...
At the same time, INTENT should be looked at when considering this or any
similar situation. A person thought highly enough of the creation to have
a $1500 version of the concept made. I doubt anybody would make a $1500
KitFox, for example. Respect goes both ways, and if the creation is used
in a non-detrimental and non-damaging way that is extremely flattering to
the original creator of the concept, people, including the concept's
creator, have the choice to view it as "I did not give you permission! BAD
PERSON!" or "Dang, that's pretty darn cool!"
Asking first should always happen preferably, HOWEVER failing at that, the
end result and end response to that result makes the difference.
Received on Fri Oct 24 2003 - 02:02:57 CDT