|
Random Politics & Religion #00
By Ramyrez 2015-03-13 13:41:44
I'll take fat well adjusted person than a skinny jerk any day.
I find myself agreeing with Ramyrez a lot. This is a weird feeling I'm not sure I can handle agreeing with people.
Ruh roh :(
http://www.glasbergen.com/copyright-law/
Quote: What’s the wrong way to share a cartoon? It is illegal to steal or “borrow” a cartoon from any source, including Google Images, to display or publish in any form of print or digital media, including social media, publications, presentations, websites, blogs and tweets. For this type of usage, you must first obtain permission from the person who created the work. It’s easy to send an e-mail request and most creators will be happy to hear from you.
 Also, as relates to Calvin & Hobbes, I'm pretty sure it's out there entirely for free to read and share. I remember I had a page bookmarked for a long, long time that had every strip available and they never had any issues.
[+]
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3621
By Shiva.Onorgul 2015-03-13 13:43:53
As a creator of artistic content and intellectual property, I'm finding that my opinion of copyright law diminishes over time. Above and beyond that there's no such thing as an original idea (exaggeration, but we know it's mostly true), beyond that virtually everything is derivative of something previous (cell phones were literally designed to ape tricorders from Star Trek), it's just very rare indeed that someone can steal another person's work and successfully profit from it. Even if Walt Disney did steal the design for Mickey Mouse, it's unlikely that mere design was what drove the Disney company to the heights it reached.
[+]
By Ramyrez 2015-03-13 13:46:15
As a creator of artistic content and intellectual property, I'm finding that my opinion of copyright law diminishes over time. Above and beyond that there's no such thing as an original idea (exaggeration, but we know it's mostly true), beyond that virtually everything is derivative of something previous (cell phones were literally designed to ape tricorders from Star Trek), it's just very rare indeed that someone can steal another person's work and successfully profit from it. Even if Walt Disney did steal the design for Mickey Mouse, it's unlikely that mere design was what drove the Disney company to the heights it reached.
I find the people concerned about copyright infringements are less artists and actual content creators and more the holders to whatever publishing rights there are. Because they're the ones looking to profit as middlemen who actually have no artistic abilities or merit of their own to sell, but they can certainly spin you into buying things.
[+]
By fonewear 2015-03-13 13:47:15
This is the most blatant case of fraudulent advertising since my suit against the film 'The Never Ending Story'"
[+]
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 10394
By Lakshmi.Sparthosx 2015-03-13 13:47:31
*** lawyers ruin everything.
[+]
By Lye 2015-03-13 13:47:58
Bill Watterson's work (creator of Calvin and Hobbes) is managed by Uclick.
http://www.universaluclick.com/help/faq-reprints#
Question: I want to use a cartoon on my web site. Who do I contact?
Answer: 1. Visit the Universal Uclick Reprints archive, search for the images you wish to use, and submit your request using our easy online request process. — or —
2. Visit our web site. Or you can go directly to our Reprint Permission Request Form (non-classroom use) to request reprint permissions.
For general inquiries, please contact:
Permissions Director
Universal Uclick
1130 Walnut Street
Kansas City, MO 64106-2109
1-800-255-6734
or e-mail your requests to: universalreprints@amuniversal.com
I'm thinking the only thing that matters is if the artist wants to pursue you or not.
By fonewear 2015-03-13 13:48:23
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »*** lawyers ruin everything.
Lionel Hutz begs to differ !
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3621
By Shiva.Onorgul 2015-03-13 13:48:59
I find the people concerned about copyright infringements are less artists and actual content creators and more the holders to whatever publishing rights there are. Every rule has an exception, though. George Lucas (talk about derivative work, by the way) is well-known for his stranglehold on his franchises which, for better or worse, were definitely a result of his own work rather than just being the bankroll.
By fonewear 2015-03-13 13:49:30
As someone that pretends to care about copyright infringement:
By fonewear 2015-03-13 13:52:49
I'm sure Google lawyers are knocking at my door as we post !
By Lye 2015-03-13 13:53:58
No. Fair use needs to meet these 5 rules:
Quote: When Is a Use a "Fair Use"?
There are five basic rules to keep in mind when deciding whether or not a particular use of an author's work is a fair use:
Rule 1: Are You Creating Something New or Just Copying?
The purpose and character of your intended use of the material involved is the single most important factor in determining whether a use is a fair use. The question to ask here is whether you are merely copying someone else's work verbatim or instead using it to help create something new.
Rule 2: Are Your Competing With the Source You're Copying From?
Without consent, you ordinarily cannot use another person's protected expression in a way that impairs (or even potentially impairs) the market for his or her work.
For example, say Nick, a golf pro, writes a book on how to play golf. He copies several brilliant paragraphs on putting from a book by Lee Trevino, one of the greatest putters in golf history. Because Nick intends his book to compete with and hopefully supplant Trevino's, this use is not a fair use.
Rule 3: Giving the Author Credit Doesn't Let You Off the Hook
Some people mistakenly believe that they can use any material as long as they properly give the author credit. Not true. Giving credit and fair use are completely separate concepts. Either you have the right to use another author's material under the fair use rule or you don't. The fact that you attribute the material to the other author doesn't change that.
Rule 4: The More You Take, the Less Fair Your Use Is Likely to Be
The more material you take, the less likely it is that your use will be a fair use. As a general rule, never: quote more than a few successive paragraphs from a book or article, take more than one chart or diagram, include an illustration or other artwork in a book or newsletter without the artist's permission, or quote more than one or two lines from a poem.
Contrary to what many people believe, there is no absolute word limit on fair use. For example, copying 200 words from a work of 300 words wouldn't be fair use. However, copying 2000 words from a work of 500,000 words might be fair. It all depends on the circumstances.
To preserve the free flow of information, authors have more leeway in using material from factual works (scholarly, technical, and scientific works) than to works of fancy such as novels, poems, and plays.
Rule 5: The Quality of the Material Used Is as Important as the Quantity
The more important the material is to the original work, the less likely your use of it will be considered a fair use.
In one famous case, The Nation magazine obtained a copy of Gerald Ford's memoirs before their publication. In the magazine's article about the memoirs, only 300 words from Ford's 200,000-word manuscript were quoted verbatim. The Supreme Court ruled that this was not a fair use because the material quoted (dealing with the Nixon pardon) was the "heart of the book ... the most interesting and moving parts of the entire manuscript," and that pre-publication disclosure of this material would cut into value or sales of the book.
In determining whether your intended use of another author's protected work constitutes a fair use the golden rule: Take from someone else only what you wouldn't mind someone taking from you.
This is not as clear-cut as you think. It's natural to try to simplify, but there are special provisions made for sharing comics through social media that are not afforded to general websites.
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3621
By Shiva.Onorgul 2015-03-13 13:54:42
And yes, posting it on the forums would be fair use. Actually, fair use gets really muddy when we're talking about using the entire work as a whole and providing neither commentary nor criticism. The only thing really defending a fair use claim of posting an entire comic (or song or short film or whatever) to a forum is that it's not likely to be a profit-generating venture. But this is a big part of why people who do reviews on YouTube and Blip try to keep their example clips very limited in duration and scope.
Again, this plays into why I'm growing more dubious of copyright law. I've watched more movies as a result of seeing critical analyses of them (spoilers rarely bother me) than as a result of advertising and critical analysis just works better when you can actually point at a clip from Batman & Robin showing why it's such a colossal piece of ***.
The biggest savior of fair use claims when it comes to forums is the old adage about getting blood from stones.
[+]
By fonewear 2015-03-13 13:55:57
Spoiler Alert:
The Titanic sinks !
Sorry guys !
By Lye 2015-03-13 13:56:35
And yes, posting it on the forums would be fair use. Actually, fair use gets really muddy when we're talking about using the entire work as a whole and providing neither commentary nor criticism. The only thing really defending a fair use claim of posting an entire comic (or song or short film or whatever) to a forum is that it's not likely to be a profit-generating venture. And whether or not the entirety of a forum post constitutes a unique work. If you only post a comic, it's not.
This is not as simple as would be convenient.
By Ramyrez 2015-03-13 13:56:59
I find the people concerned about copyright infringements are less artists and actual content creators and more the holders to whatever publishing rights there are. Every rule has an exception, though. George Lucas (talk about derivative work, by the way) is well-known for his stranglehold on his franchises which, for better or worse, were definitely a result of his own work rather than just being the bankroll.
True, true. Big money does things to people, that's for sure.
By fonewear 2015-03-13 13:58:23
Your argument isn't even worth replying to honestly. They don't go after people who post things in forums. First they'd go after ffxiah, second they'd go after the webhost. And it's not even illegal. So the entire argument is just stupid.
Argument is stupid 20 pages later ! Oh yea why don't you tell my lawyer that.
By Lye 2015-03-13 13:59:00
Your argument isn't even worth replying to honestly. They don't go after people who post things in forums. First they'd go after ffxiah, second they'd go after the webhost. And it's not even illegal. So the entire argument is just stupid.
Sorry, I thought I was doing you a favor by pointing out something not many posters consider.
I'll not do that in the future.
By Ramyrez 2015-03-13 14:00:34
Your argument isn't even worth replying to honestly. They don't go after people who post things in forums. First they'd go after ffxiah, second they'd go after the webhost. And it's not even illegal. So the entire argument is just stupid.
Sorry, I thought I was doing you a favor by pointing out something not many posters consider.
I'll not do that in the future.
The internet has very much muddied the waters of using copyrighted material when profit is not occuring.
Pretty much every meme ever is "copyright infringement".
In this particular case, Bill Waterson would tend to be more upset if it was altered or sold than shared for free. But that's just the kind of guy he is. Very stringent about cheaping his work by selling it and marketing it.
By fonewear 2015-03-13 14:01:15
Wait a minute people profit from the internet ! That is news to me.
By Lye 2015-03-13 14:01:51
Your argument isn't even worth replying to honestly. They don't go after people who post things in forums. First they'd go after ffxiah, second they'd go after the webhost. And it's not even illegal. So the entire argument is just stupid.
Sorry, I thought I was doing you a favor by pointing out something not many posters consider.
I'll not do that in the future.
The internet has very much muddied the waters of copyright use when it comes to not profiting from the use.
Pretty much every meme ever is "copyright infringement".
In this particular case, Bill Waterson would tend to be more upset if it was altered or sold than shared for free. But that's just the kind of guy he is. Very stringent about cheaping his work by selling it and marketing it.
Except they don't copyright them.
He has shut down people resuming/modifying his work (as I'm sure your aware).
By Ramyrez 2015-03-13 14:03:54
Except they don't copyright them.
Eh?
I'm honestly unclear of the argument you're tring to make.
The chances of people being pursued for using a comic strip in a not-for-profit fashion are infinitesimally small, and even if they did, the posts containing the imagine would be removed and that would likely be the end of the story.
He has shut down people resuming/modifying his work (as I'm sure your aware).
Aye, but nothing was modified.
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 10394
By Lakshmi.Sparthosx 2015-03-13 14:04:55
I dream to see an America where police kick in your door and haul you out in chains you copyright infringing scumbag for singing happy birthday to your child without paying a royalty.
How dare you put that on a PC and think WE weren't watching?
25-40 years in prison for anyone who pirates or watches a pirated video.
[+]
By Lye 2015-03-13 14:05:02
Your argument isn't even worth replying to honestly. They don't go after people who post things in forums. First they'd go after ffxiah, second they'd go after the webhost. And it's not even illegal. So the entire argument is just stupid.
Sorry, I thought I was doing you a favor by pointing out something not many posters consider.
I'll not do that in the future. Believing you wanted to do me a favor after nerd raging about me saying being overweight is unhealthy so shouldn't be glorified follows about as well as Putin hosting a real election.
Wow. I was being facetious about glorifying fat. You....
You took that seriously....
By fonewear 2015-03-13 14:06:04
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »I dream to see an America where police kick in your door and haul you out in chains you copyright infringing scumbag for singing happy birthday to your child without paying a royalty.
How dare you put that on a PC and think WE weren't watching?
25-40 years in prison for anyone who pirates or watches a pirated video.
If that were true my friend would spend the rest of his life in prison...
I don't think he has legally purchased a PC game in 10 years.
Random Politics & Religion is for topics that aren't thread worthy on their own and do not have their own existing thread.
Rules and Guidelines
Forum Rules and P&R Section Guidelines still apply.
Satire is tolerated.
If your topic covers a story over 6 months old (Watergate, Benghazi, 2012 Election, etc.) post it here.
Discussions on racism, homophobia, transphobia, and the like are allowed, targeted insults based on these will not be tolerated.
Political debates get heated and are meant to be intense, if you take offense to being called or proven wrong, you don't belong here.
If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen; if you prove you can't handle the criticism you bring upon yourself in this thread, you may be removed from it. You are responsible for what you post.
Along those lines, heat is fine, but sustained, clearly personal hostility is not okay. The personal attack rules still apply. Attack positions, not posters. Failure to adhere to this will result in your removal from the thread.
This thread is NOT the Flame Core.
These rules are subject to change and modification where and when needed.
Random Politics & Religion may be mained or demained depending on the activity within at a Moderator's discretion.
With that out of the way, let the debates begin!
/bow
|
|