Copywrite laws are they to vague?

[Pax]

Originally posted by PvK:
Ok, but that's not what I meant. I didn't mean you could replace my word "it" with "piracy" or "nuclear holocaust" - I was just talking about fan art. If someone wants to draw a picture of Spock and not make any money off it, I say that should be allowed, and I have zero sympathy for any imaginary damage done to Paramount Pictures Inc.. Nor should they be required to mount such attacks in order to preserve their rights.

Paramount owns the likeness of Spok as IP -- either through copyright, or, trademark (and trademark is forever, as it should be).

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).

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.

"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.

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.

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.