[Pax]

Originally posted by PvK:
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.

Roddenberry invented the idea of the Trek series, and pitched it to Paramount. Have you seen "The Glass Menagerie" ... ? The bits they watch in recording form, was the idea Roddenberry made and pitched to Paramount, and was the original pilot (re-used to make TGM itself).

Obviously, many changes happened -- the Spock character underwent significant changes, taking the place of the then-female first officer.

Ergo, the character of Spock as we know him, was created by Roddenberry while he worked under contract to Paramount. Thus, he was acting as an agent of Paramount, so, Paramount has reasonable and fair claim on Spock, the character, as IP. This is in terms of logic, reasonable common sense, and not under the especial light of the law itself.

[quote] 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]

Really? When people can get something for free (your pics), why should they pay for almost-the-same-thing (Paramount's pics) ... ?

Your free pics have denied Paramount potential sales based on their properties.

[quote][b] 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]

And I think they're not. I think it IS important to stress, under the law, that if you take, for example, the characters and setting of Star Wars, and write novels that put them in situations and crises which George Lucas disapproves of, Lucas should have EVERY RIGHT to say "those are MY characters, that's MY setting, and you don't have permission to use them! Cease and desist!"

And the law should back him up on that.

Yet your story might have been intended as true fan art; perhaps you felt your stories owuld "add to the Star Wars legacy" in a positive way.

Star Wars doesn't belong to you, though, so you have no right -- and should have no right -- to make that decision.

FWIW, Lucas is still alive, and "life +25 years" would still cover all of SW.

[qb] 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.

"they exist because they want to publish and develop the kinds of games that they really like," ... and make a profit doing so.

Without profit, after all, they can't avoid the "work for a megacorp" bit.

If maximizing their profits were their reason for existence,

Did I say maxxing profit? No. Did I ever even imply it was their ONLY reason to exist? No.

Rare, IMO, is the corporation that truly DOES exist solely for profit's own sake. Even Micro$haft has other motives, at some levels of the hierarchy at least.

I think that's a bad thing.

Bugs Bunny is the creation of Chuck Jones, who I believe died Last year

Then the copyright should be running for ... 24 more years (life of author/creator plus 25 years). Your point is?

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.

In terms of copyright, it's not far form making a picture and xeroxing it, and making a home-done animated short and broadcasting it -- over the internet, perhaps.

Copyright relates to the rights to make ABSOLUTELY ANY KIND of copy. Period.

[quote]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. [qb][quote]

The law defines what you describe as an infringement; "piracy" is a common-usage term applied by people OUTSIDE the legal profession.

[qb]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

PvK -- that behavior is evolved into us. Youw ant to change that -- prove there is a god, and take it up with her.

I find your blue-sky wishful thinking to be of no use in the real world. Sure, it'd be NICE if artists just kinda got PAID, commensurate with the appreciation of their work by society-at-large;; it'd be NICE if noone stole form anyoen else.

But being nice doesn't make something possible. We live in a world where people lie, cheat, and steal.

As a result, we need laws that provide legal redress AGAINST those who have lied, cheated, and stolen.

Blue-sky wishful thinking won't change reality, no matter HOW hard you try to malign the corporate aspect of capitalism.

Speaking of capitalism -- you wouldn't happen to be a socialist or communist, would you? Because you sure as hell sound like one!