Copyright Infringement

Wow... talk about copyright infringement!!! Plus, this looks absolutely stupid... give the show a bad name... crack down on them.
 
Profnoxin,

Thanks for you valuable feedback. I think you've educated a lot of people here. It's important for everyone to realize that it's up to the copyright holder to enforce their copyright, and it's not only their right to do so, but their duty to do so, if they want to maintain their own legal rights. If the DVX forum rules say "no copyright infringement" it has to be clear what that means... and it has to be equal across the board (as much as humanly possible).
 
EditPhish said:
It's important for everyone to realize that it's up to the copyright holder to enforce their copyright, and it's not only their right to do so, but their duty to do so, if they want to maintain their own legal rights.
Click to expand...

Trademark, not Copyright. :)
 
profnoxin said:
I'm sure that some of you have heard this before, but I thought I would throw this out there... Having a legal background, and spending a little time in copyright law, I have the following to help clear up any sort of confusion.

A copyright is only as good as those who enforce it. The people who we are dealing with here (Marvel, DC, WildStorm, Image, Dark Horse, etc.) enforce the ever loving hell out of their copyrights. Marvel layed the smack down on City of Heroes for coming too close to having a "Wolverine-Esque" (their words, not mine) archetype in the game, and they got the devs. to re-write the code. They watch the forums like a hawk for people who have names that come close to their copyright. If they don't like what you're doing, they will file a cease-and-desist. They will then promptly sue. And if not you, this site, and the good people who make it possible. Even if this lawsuit is baseless, it will still cost time and money.

If you are under their radar, yeah, maybe nothings happens. A daycare center that helped at-risk kids in Detroit had Mickey Mouse on one of their walls inside the building. They had it up for years. They were under the radar. Then the center won an award, had a photo taken of the staff in front of the wall where Mickey was displayed, the photo was in the papers, and Disney sued the center. That picture put them on the radar. That center no longer exists. All it takes is one guy in the legal department of (fill in the blank) who has a bad hangover, a bad attitude, and time to kill.

Comic book companies copyright everything. They are only as good as their trademarked and copywritten icons / locations / names.

Be smart. Be safe. Be original. Have fun. Don't screw this site up for all of us.
Click to expand...

Disappointing, I was so hoping to see a sequel to Python's 'Bicycle Repairman'.
 
EditPhish said:
Actually, it's both. Copyright and Trademark holders have to enforce their own copyrights and trademarks :happy:
Click to expand...

You're both correct, in a sense. I think there's just a disagreement of scope.

As GenJerDan said, you can lose a trademark due to non-enforcement. I have never heard of a case of a copyright being negated due to excessive misuse. Theoretically, if 999 people improperly use your copyright, you can still sue the 1000th. If enough people improperly use your trademark, you're screwed (xerox, jello, band-aid).

But, as EditPhish said, if you don't enforce your copyright or trademark, the government won't do it for you. You can join groups (the evil RIAA and MPAA) that will act on your behalf, but otherwise you have to find and make notice.

Just so people know, the overused trademark negation situation will most likely not apply to anyone in this contest.
 
Yeah, you can't "lose" a copyright like that, as far as I can see. I suppose you could let it get to the point where a court would give you the hairy eyeball if you tried to collect from the 10,000th person to infringe, but you still retain the copyright. :)
 
If you don't have official permission from the copyright holder, it's most likely infringement.

To have a couple seconds of the rocky theme in Mad Hot Ballroom, the producers had to pay at least several hundred dollars... and it was a ringing cell-phone if I remember correctly.
 
wcs said:
You're both correct, in a sense. I think there's just a disagreement of scope.

As GenJerDan said, you can lose a trademark due to non-enforcement. I have never heard of a case of a copyright being negated due to excessive misuse. Theoretically, if 999 people improperly use your copyright, you can still sue the 1000th. If enough people improperly use your trademark, you're screwed (xerox, jello, band-aid).

But, as EditPhish said, if you don't enforce your copyright or trademark, the government won't do it for you. You can join groups (the evil RIAA and MPAA) that will act on your behalf, but otherwise you have to find and make notice.

Just so people know, the overused trademark negation situation will most likely not apply to anyone in this contest.
Click to expand...
I'm no lawyer, just know what I know through practice... I don't think you can "lose" a copyright, but I think a judge can decide that you don't have the right to be compensated if you're too leniant with your permissions.

This is why Disney jumps on everyone trying to make a profit off their copyrighted material. It's not a matter of them being "evil"... it's a matter if in one commercial circumstance they say it's okay, then it causes them to be selective, and later on in court, a judge could say "well you let a, b and c use your copyrighted material without permission, so why not x, y and z?"

At least that's how I understand it...
 
EditPhish said:
.. but I think a judge can decide that you don't have the right to be compensated if you're too leniant with your permissions.
Click to expand...

Either you infringed someone's copyright, or you didn't. If you did, it was either fair use, or it wasn't. Fair use has no exemption for "copyright dilution". The only parallel I can think of that might support your case is Squatter's Rights.

If you're thinking of Lucas' friendliness towards fan films. He could wake up tomorrow and decide to shut down all the sites. The courts wouldn't care which one he sued first.

Modern copyright law sucks as it applies to the internet. There should be strong exemptions for non-commercial derivative art (and derivate art in general), but there aren't. Current law says "get a license or don't use a sample" for the remix culture. Google Lawrence Lessig if you want to read up on what I'm talking about.

Sorry. It sucks. I can see no loophole for the kind of thing you're talking about (in copyright law).

Edit: forgot to mention.. you might have a defense if Lucas said "take this down" and you did immediately, and he still sued you. But since "acting in good faith" is not an accepted infringement defense in america, you'd still probably lose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement
 
Last edited:
The Lucas thing is a bit different... hit people maintain certain sites and control some of the fan material. He could shut it all down at any time, but I highly doubt he would be allowed to sue. Not, at least, until he shut down those that he supports.

With the comic book question earlier, I would say "Greek it". The common practice in the film industry is to "Greek" something by partially obscuring a trademark/copywritten image. Take your "Conan" comic, use some paint/tape/ink and turn it into a "Gonad" comic. Cover up part of the artwork, you're in the clear.

Or, just stay 10 miles from stuff that you think is copywritten, and you're probably allright. Happy hunting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top