I believe the way things go is as such:
You can not copyright a character. You can, however, trademark a character.
There is a difference between the two. You cannot take someone to court for
violating a copyright on a character, but you /can/ take them to court for
violating a trademark.
For example, Disney. Disney has had Mickey Mouse trademarked for many, many
years. They are continuing to fight to keep him trademarked so that
nobody -else- can make money off of him. In many ways, Copyrights and
Trademarks are similar in how they are handled when violated. But the
difference being, is that if you produce a work, such as a book, art,
sculpture, or anything of that nature, you may copyright that image, but you
may not copyright the character. This means you can prevent anybody else
from mimicing that image and you can sell it and make a profit from it, but
not for people to produce fan art. Basically 'Plagarism'. However, you
can -still- produce fan art or any sort of variation on the original image
as LONG as it cannot be determined to be a copy thereof the original piece.
Hence 'Copy Right'. This means you may not copy the original piece of art.
If I draw a picture of, say, Melissa Mouse standing with one leg on a rock
in a dramatic pose, then you may not reproduce that image of Melissa Mouse
standing with one leg on a rock. However, you -can- produce an image of
Melissa Mouse sitting in a chair eating a crumpet. You are not copying the
original image, merely producing your version of the character, which is
legal. Some companies don't like their characters defamed or placed in
erotic situations, but there's little they can do about it. In either case,
as long as you are not reproducing the original image, two totally different
artists can actually profit from the same character as long as they're not
copying the same image, even if Artist #1 came up with the character
originally.
Trademarks, however, are different. You may not reproduce any trademarked
character in any fashion with the intent to profit from it. However, you,
can produce variations and 'fan art' of that Trademarked character, but you
may still not profit from it. This means if Artist #1 creates a character
and Trademarks it, and sells images of that character as part of their
profitable income, then Artist #2 may not do so in any fashion, without
express written permission of Artist #1. For example. Disney creates a
Rubber statue of Mickey Mouse holding a key, and sells it for a profit.
Artist #2 produces a Rubber statue of Mickey Mouse holding an ice cream
cone, but is not permitted to sell it for a profit because Mickey Mouse is
trademarked. However, Artist #2 may ask Artist #1 for permission to sell
their art, and sometimes Artist #1 will grant permission, for a small fee.
This is why companies such as the RIAA are going after people with Mp3's of
music ripped from CD's because they are considering them copyright
infringements (I.E. Exact reproductions of the original work) and they are
technically in the right. (However) Not to stem a flame war, it appears that
the RIAA are going after people with Mp3's SOLELY because MP3's are not
degradeable like tapes and CD's and they can't make you buy another copy
when your original copy is ruined. But moving right along, the RIAA cannot
sue you for copyright infringement if you, with your garage band, produce a
cover of Metallica's 'Enter Sandman' with your own variations, because it is
your own work even if it is not your own original idea. THis is why there
are beginning to be a lot of variations of old 40's and 50's songs such as
Pearl Jam's 'Last Kiss' and other such songs. This is why there are like 50
million variations of 'Every Breath You Take' originally written by Sting
and performed by the Police. Puff Daddy did -NOT- originally write that
song, but he did change it. These are just a few examples.
I hope this clears things up.
----- Original Message -----
From: <pbskidvid_at_earthlink.net>
To: <SkunkworksAMA_at_yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 7:31 PM
Subject: Re:[SkunkworksAMA] Re: Stuffed Toys, Copyrights, And Etc...
> "samnnes" <samnnes_at_yahoo.com> wrote on 10/24/03 5:41:11 AM:
> >
> >Then please clear up on what bases are some companes going aroung
> >sueing people that make fan-art that thee company claims violates
> >their copy right on the character?
>
> They claim that the fan art works detract from the value of the character,
a very tough claim. They have to
> prove that the image or artist in question has taken the attention away
from the consumer product made
> by the studio, or ruins the image of the character by portraying them in a
fashion which is incosistent with
> the character's norm.
>
> I wonder how did they get to Karri Aronenj and Klaus Doberman. They had
good fanart until the studios
> slapped a cease and desist order on them.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
Received on Sat Oct 25 2003 - 00:27:37 CDT