And this is exactly why people ignore it.
At no point did I say, flat out, 'redistribution is legal'.
Thanks for reinforcing my point. =3
It's legal to redistribute (any material which is posted by the author or copyright holder to a public median.) Meaning that unless the site requires an agreement (HAVING a ToS does not hold water in court, forcing them to click 'I Agree' while reading the ToS does.), requires an account or password*, or is a pay-service.
* = By doing this, the site is considered private. Any copyright violations must be handled personally, and can only be handled in civil court, and even then only if damages are concerned.
It's not illegal to redistribute works which are posted publicly and do not have a copyright, trademark, or other signifying mark on them, period. Nor can civil cases be brought up for such.
It's not illegal to redistribute copyrighted works which are posted publicly, period, provided no profit is taken, the work is not claimed as the distributor's own, and the work is not stored on a private website (see above reguarding).
It's not illegal, but can be subject to civil fines (See: Lawsuit) to redistribute copyrighted material for profit* [ONLY if the material is non-commercial], claiming anothers' work as one's own*, redistributing on a private site^, redistributing works with the copyright clearly stated to places stated that they may not be reposted in the ToS or object itself, or in the case of art redistributing copies of commercial materials such as scans and CD*s. * = See next section, as some situations can be illegal as well. ^ = Although this is case-by-case and civil, it can be subject to fines. A private website is considered equivalent to showing ones' friends a t-shirt in public, which is obviously not illegal. It MUST be proven that the work was recreated, not simply references or duplicated. IE, taking a webcam pic and only posting it to a private site only your friends have access to of a print is not a violation!
It is not illegal, but can be subject to civil fines (See: Mandatory Purchase) to retain ownership of property that is stated as temporary, sample, or trial. (See: Shareware. That means, yes, WinZip and WinRar can force you to purchase that copy that's 937 days old and nagging you.)
It is not illegal, in any way, to parody or mimic works, provided there is a substantial (currently 25%) difference in the work, or the work is used for satire.
It is illegal (See: Jail time) and subject to federal and civil fines (See: Lawsuit, Royalties, Mandatory Purchase, and Fines) to redistribute commercial work which is not posted publicly, has specific distribution instructions attached, or specific distribution instructions that were agreed to through a proper ToS, commercial copyrighted work, or copyrighted work which is distributed for the intent of publicity for a commercial cause.
It is illegal, and subject to federal and civil fines (See: Fucked) to claim a trademarked work or to profit from trademarked work {There's a difference!}, redistribute trademarked work (even if posted publicly by author), or retain ownership of a trademarked work without consent from it's creator. (Meaning if you own an original Bugs Bunny cell, WB can take it from you, and fine you for not telling me. No joke.)
Copyright, Trademark, and the intricacies involved are all very, very different from popular belief. I can go by my fursona's name and profit off it, legally, because the group that originally owned the copyright didn't trademark it, and the copyright was not explicitly transferred when the company was bought out. In 2005, I filed for the copyright. And I hold the legal documentation from the US patents office as proof. Copyrights expire if they were established for an entity rather than an individual, and the entity disbands and does not transfer ownership in paper.
In brief, also:
This incident in SL is, in fact, illegal. The artwork that Jim sells in comics and prints is commercial and sold privately and distributed privately. Furthermore, the artwork posted to the group, though it's a public site, requires specific permissions to join. This makes it a private site. And finally, Skunkworks (when it was up) had a proper click-through. Though it was only an age-consent form (and, as far as I remember, nothing else), it established that the site was not for public-consumption.
Which means Jimmy is legally able to do the following:
1) Demand that the user pay his full current sales price for each and every copy he has sold or distributed. (See: Mandatory Purchase)
2) Demand royalties accordingly. (Note: This offers him the copyright liscense solely for distribution. He has to pay Jim for each sale, whatever price Jim decides, but he can continue selling it.)
3) Sue for damages.
4) File a federal case, to recover base value (Much less than the above options) and enforce jail time.
Though option 4 requires a lawyer, a lot of time, and a well-built case.
As for quoting, i'll state THE ORIGINAL copyright myth site:
http://www.starvingartistslaw.com/copyright/copyright.htm
And, the DMCA:
http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf
(If you would like me to do line-items, just say so. I'd need to go through and read the whole thing to put it together peice by peice. But I will, if you ask me to. Just reply to this. =)
Then Lafitte's rant on FA. Lafitte is an artist who I am about to start selling CDs for, in fact! She would be my fourth customer to print CDs for to date. This is why I know intimately about copyright law.
(Taken directly from Lafitte's journal without permission.)
Alright, I'm about to really piss off ab out 90% of the furry fandom here. If you don't believe something I'm about to say, though, do some research and prove me wrong with quoted sources. A good resource is this:
http://www.starvingartistslaw.com/c...../copyright.htm
First things first, a copyright applies only to a physical piece. An image, or a story, or a piece of sheet music is copyrighted. In fact, the act of creation confirms the copyright, and anything you do beyond this is only to prove the copyright at a later date. However, the poses and characters of a picture, the characters or actions of a story, and the act of singing the song are not protected by copyright. Ever. It's not possible for a non-physical object, like an idea, to be copyrighted.
What copyright protects is two specific things. The claim of ownership of the piece, and the right to make copies. Hence the term 'copyright', but here's some complications. Copyright is a civil matter, so if someone makes copies you can only really sue them for damages, so unless they made money off of it or damaged your reputation, all you can do is demand they stop. Copies made for personal use are also legal. Finally, anything you put online as free content, anywhere, is considered public domain for use on the internet. It does not violate copyright to repost artwork that the artist put online first. If it was on a pay sight, like Bernal's stuff, then that's different, but if it's on FA, you've already given permission to 4chan to legally post it. Fchan's DNP list is there for politeness' sake only.
If you want to own a piece of art that someone drew, comissioning them isn't enough. The artist still holds copyright and that thing they did in your sketchbook. There are two ways you can own it, though. You can legally hire them, or you can have them sign a contract to add their work to a larger body of work. To legally hire them, they need to be filed on your pay roll. Like, officially. With tax forms and shit. You'll have to mail them a W2 form. In the later, you'll need to be making a larger body of work that is of your original design (say, a calendar) and have contributing artists sign away their copyright for what they add. Without a larger body of work, even a contract may not hold up in court. Otherwise you only own the single piece of paper the artist drew on and hold no rights of ownership or reproduction on what's drawn on it.
'Art theft', legally, is either claiming ownership of a piece or making illegal, physical copies. When furries talk about 'art theft' they're usually talking about an idea that they've convinced themselves, collectively, isn't just an idea. Asking an artist permission for reposting their work isn't legally required. Not listing their name on 4chan isn't illegal. It's just rude, according to many furries. Feel free to call it rude, just don't act like it's more than an opinion. Being nice to your artists is a virtue. Let me repeat that in caps so no one misses it, BEING NICE TO ARTISTS IS A VIRTUE, but lying to each other about the law is stupid.
Part of the problem is that people, not just furries, often confuse trademarks and copyrights. A trademark actually does give you full rights to the use of an idea. It's why all fan art of Micky Mouse is technically illegal and could be seized by Disney at any time. A trademark is, well, a mark of trade. It's a symbol used by a company. You could have your own trademark, though, a symbolic entity or sign that represents you, but here's what you have to do: 1- pay the government, 2- fill out a form, and 3- frequently use the sign or character to represent yourself as an individual. Failing to use the object as a symbol for yourself will cause your trademark to wither and die.
So here are the lessons:
The artist owns the work unless you go through a lot of effort to make it yours beforehand.
The artist is the only one allowed to profit from or copy the piece.
Your characters in the piece, and their pose, fur pattern, colors, etc. are not anyone's property.
Reposting online is legal.
Asking permission is nice, when reasonable (when the thread isn't going to disapear in a couple seconds) and not listing the artists name when you know who did it makes you an ass.
Before you flame my journal, prove me wrong.
----- Original Message -----
From: David Parenteau
To: SkunkworksAMA_at_yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 7:38 PM
Subject: Re: [SkunkworksAMA] second lice "skunked.com"
At 07:27 PM 4/17/2007, Axle Gear wrote:
>It's not the redistribution that bothers me. (in fact, that's not even
>illegal. Long story, i'd need to quote sections of copyright law to
>explain. Even then most folks will ignore it.)
Quote them. I want you to try to defend that it's not illegal so that
people can see why defending like you may or may not is a bad idea.
Please don't get the mistaken idea that "it's okay as long as you don't
make money", because this will get you into a whole mess of trouble. The
only thing you are allowed to do unless specifically given rights otherwise
is re-sell the item, as long as you lose the copy and somebody else gains it.
In fact, years ago, there was chaos over Yahoo's ToS change about "The
right to publish blah blah blah" and people crying "We're giving away our
rights!"... Well, no, not giving away. You're just giving Yahoo the right
to show the stuff you put on their server to other people, otherwise Yahoo
doesn't have that right and cannot show it to people who request to see it.
Unless you are a lawyer, I would not ever advise anybody that
"redistribution is legal" unless you want folks like the RIAA to love you
for getting them more money from lawsuits against people who believe you.
Received on Tue Apr 17 2007 - 19:43:05 CDT