Quote:
Originally posted by Pax:
Paramount owns the likeness of Spok as IP -- either through copyright, or, trademark (and trademark is forever, as it should be).
|
Unless I'm mistaken, Gene Roddenberry invented Spock, and he died. I'd say it would be fine if humanity could inherit the right to use his literature without fighting about who first invested in the rights to use it decades ago. The absence of copyrights on pre-(c)/pre-TM literature isn't causing problems, and megacorps continue to profit from using such creations, even though I still don't agree that megacorp profits are something to try to protect. After all, they only exist to increase their own wealth and power, so they can continue to do the same thing, until they own it all, or as much as they can get away with - megalomania without the megalomaniac.
Quote:
|
What if Paramount wants to profit by selling depictions of the TOS crew (which in fact, they do) ... ? Someone out there, no matter how talented (or not), handing out free depictions thereof, prevents Paramount form properly and fairly profiting by their creation(s).
|
Untrue. Handing out my own Versions of TOS characters will have little or no impact, and might even help, Paramount sell their own junk based on Roddenberry's work. Big deal.
Quote:
quote:
Well, in my opinion, even though you may be correct about the current legal situation, in my opinion, that's ridiculous. Fan art should not invalidate copyrights.
|
Under the law, there is no such thing as "fan art"; there are original works, derivative works, and unlawful copies or derivations thereof.
You're playing definition games, and I'm not really interested in the particulars of actual legal definitions. If fan art is illegal and a threat to corporations under the current laws, then I think the current laws are ridiculous.
Quote:
quote:
"Marvel exists to profit..." yeah well, I certainly don't feel much concern for the continued existence, let alone support, of organizations which "exist to profit". You do?
|
MM exists for profit; so does Shrapnel Games. I feel concern for their continued existance, and their continued support.
I happen to appreciate their products, as you also presumably do.
I disagree. I would say, from what I have read of Shrapnel and MM's publications about their work (q.v. on this web site) and their goals, is that they exist because they want to publish and develop the kinds of games that they really like, and be able to avoid working for a megacorp doing uninteresting junk to maximize profits.
If maximizing their profits were their reason for existence, they'd work in a different field, or concentrate on mass marketting trendy crap or trying to make a mega-hit, like the megacorps do.
Quote:
quote:
Well again, you're talking about piracy, not fan art. I think there's a huge difference.
|
Fan Art is a (minor) form of piracy, however. If you draw Bugs Bunny on a piece of paper, you have created a derivative work -- your work is not original, it is derived from the owned work of WB, Inc.
You do not have the right to photocopy that drawing and hand copies out; you do not own copyright on "your" derivative work, WB does.
I think that's a bad thing.
Bugs Bunny is the creation of Chuck Jones, who I believe died Last year
(according to this article). Recent Bugs Bunny cartoons may be the work of wage slaves, well-paid minions, or computers of WB, Inc., but why is that system a good one? If I want to draw Buggs and xerox it, I'm not going to do anything negative to WB, Inc., from a realistic non-twisted-legal standpoint. I'd probably have a positive effect by reminding people of something WB sells. If that's defined as piracy, then it's just another abuse of the English language by legal texts. If I wanted to argue about stupid legal definitions, I might have been a lawyer... eeeew.
Quote:
quote:
It may be true too that you're discussing practical legal reality under the current system, whereas I'm arguing what I think should ideally the the case.
PvK
|
I think the current case would be fine, if __ things became true:
One, people started having some RESPECT for the concept of IP, and asked PERMISSION before displaying or distributing their fan art. Many companies would probably grant such permission -- look at how many offer "Fansite Webkits" to help people make fansites focussed on their IP look better ... and usually (if not always) offer the kits for FREE, one might add?
Two, character likenesses were redefined as "trademark" IP, and not "copyright" IP.
Three, the original constitutionally-mandated expiry dates were reinstated on copyright laws.
Those three things, taken together, would IMO render the system as close to workably perfect as humanly possible.
The first one is the one that's likely impossible ... it's the one that buts up against innate human greed and the "******* factor" alike.
But, it's a darned sight more achievable than your (IMO) blue-sky-fantasy ideas of honor systems and free exchange of data, etc.
Mainly because so many people just herd along without questioning the status quo, and buy into the existing system. Kind of like the Brobroba (sp? - OOPS! TM INFRIGNEMENT! $5000 dollar fine!) States, who refuse to believe in the existence of Warp Points.
PvK
[ June 26, 2003, 20:15: Message edited by: PvK ]