Copywrite laws are they to vague?

[Rojero]

Hey guys
This is something of a serious note, any feedback to the following will be much appreciated. As a fan of any art, literature, and so forth I found this quite disturbing at the stupidity of some companies.
This letter comes from a fan site dedicated to creating Skins and Meshes involving Marvel characters for the game Freedom Force. What has come to my understanding is that anything a fan does that "distributes" copyrighted material in any form (Like our great Star Trek Mods) is infringing on the rights of the company.
Funny thing I thought Fans are supposed to love and support their favorite Icon, I guess all those Star Trek conventions are breaking the law. I feel a gnawing disgust at the moment.

(note, this letter has been edited to remove my mailing address)

MARVEL ENTERPRISES, INC.

June 9, 2003

Re: UNATHORIZED USE OF MARVEL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

ELI BARD
SENIOR LITIGATION ATTORNEY

Dear Mr. Benson and Ms. Horn:

I write to inform you that the website that you are listed as the administrative contact for, www.skindex.net, contains and evidently distributes unauthorized reproductions of Marvel's valuable intellectual property.

Skindex,net is not permitted to copy or reproduce the copyrighted images or distinctive likenesses of Marvel's characters, nor use the registered trademarks associated with those characters such as Spider-Man, Wolverine, Nightcrawler, etc.

The property skindex.net is infringing is protected by the 1976 Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §101, et seq. The Copyright Act provides the owner of a copyrighted work, in this instance, Marvel, with, among other exclusive rights, the exclusive right to reproduce the work in copies and to distribute copies of the works to the public. The remedies for copyright infringement include the copyright owner's option to elect statutory damages which range from $500 ? $20,000 for each instance of nonwillful infringement, but which can escalate to $100,000 for each instance of willful copyright infringement. Attorneys' fees are also recoverable by a successful copyright infringement plaintiff.

A separate federal law, The Lanham Act, prohibits use of Marvel's famous, federally registered MARVEL, SPIDER-MAN, and WOLVERINE trademarks, among others, without permission. 15 U.S.C. §1125 of The Lanham Act also prohibits unfair competition and false designation of origin, as do state common law. The Lanham Act provides for treble damages and attorneys' fees in instances of willful trademark infringement, as well as disgorgement of profits, and injunctive relief.

Given the blatant bad faith evidenced by skindex.net, Marvel hereby demands your written confirmation that skindex.net has (1) removed all Marvel intellectual property and references to Marvel intellectual property from its website or any other site (or other location); (2) abandoned all unauthorized copying and distribution of the the Marvel intellectual property and (3) agreed to cease and desist from any and all other acts of unfair competition with Marvel.

Given the apparent willful nature of your actions, Marvel demands that skindex.net disclose all of its activities with respect to its use of Marvel's properties, including but not limited to all sales or distribution of any products bearing any Marvel intellectual property, the names and contact information for all companies that have purchased or downloaded those items, as well as the addresses of any other websites where the infringing properties have been posted. In addition, skindex.net must disgorge ally and all profits illegally made from its use of Marvel's property and enter into a permanent injunction in which it agrees never to infringe Marvel's property again.

If skindex,net fails to provide this written confirmation by June 20, 2003, Marvel is prepared immediately to take all appropriate action to protect its valuable intellectual property rights, which may include seeking an injunction against further infringement, monetary damages, the cost of corrective advertising, and Marvel's costs and attorneys' fees.

This letter is written without prejudice to any of Marvel's rights or remedies, all of which are expressly reserved

Very truly yours,

Eli Bard

cc: Allen S. Lipson, Esq.

[PvK]

It's yet another power grab by corporations motivated entirely by greed, and an attack on freedom of expression, in my opinion.

As long as you aren't selling, it shouldn't be illegal. If that's not the law, then the law should be unconstitutional.

PvK

[Atrocities]

I got a letter regarding violating Paramounts Copyright a long time ago and my old Angel Fire site was shut down.

Now I make my own ships. When I followed up on the letter I recieved I was informed that it did not come from Paramount, and that as far as Paramount was concerned, fan sites that do not profit from copyrighted materials based upon Star Trek are of no concern to them. They in fact wished me luck on my web site. Paramount understands that if not for the fans who dedicate literally thousands of hours on fan based projects, large companies like Marvel and Paramount wouldn't have the fan base they currently enjoy.

I believe Kwok was aware of this so he too wanted to use all original works in his mod just to avoid problems.

[ June 18, 2003, 20:16: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

[Jack Simth]

Atrocities & Rojero:
The reason companies go after copyright violations so ruthlessly is so that they can keep having exclusive control when it comes to the paid market. If they don't go after small violations when it comes to their attention, then a clever person making a larger violation has a form of precedent when it comes to court, which can cause them to win the case, despite the fact that the large violation is selling while the small ones weren't.

In order to stop such things from happening, all you need to do is write a (certified) letter to the company holding copyright explaining your non-profit intent and asking permission, and wait for their response. However, you do need to keep the response in a safety deposit box somewhere, as the companies contract out defense of their copyrights, and the company doesn't always totally inform their sub-contractors. Once you have permission in writing, you are licensed, and the precedent issue goes away for the company.

PvK:
It can hurt a business severly if someone is freely distributing stuff that is closely related to the product the business is selling. That is actually part of the reason for patent and copyright laws; it helps protect the little businesses. Suppose, for instance, that company X produces a new (copyrighted/patented) software algorythm that allows an OS to intelligently adapt to a new situation invisibly. Now, suppose Microsoft feels threatened by this, steals the algorythm, and starts distributing it free of charge. Microsoft is big, and can absorb the loss. X is not, and can't compete. Once X goes out of business, Microsoft can buy and use or suppress the algorythm. Copyright and patent law helps to prevent this. It used to be that patents expired after 20 years and copyrights after 75 - but I have heard that has changed recently.

As for unconstitutional: The constitution actually makes specific allowance for copyrights and patents:

From The United States Constitution, Article 1, section 8(Powers vested in Congress):
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inverntors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

Further, the freedom of expression you refer to isn't directly in the constitution - that is an interpertaition based on the first amendment:

First amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It refers to freedom of speech and the press, not images et cetera; not expression.

[ June 18, 2003, 21:21: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

[Erax]

What most people do not understand is that it is illegal to use someone else's intellectual property without permission, even if you do not make a profit from it.

This is what I would call a typical unenforceable law - fans can reproduce and distribute corporate IP an order of magnitude faster than the corporate lawyers can track them and shut them down. Paramount, for one, seems to understand this. If other corporations don't, well, they have the law on their side. Shut down your site and move on, they probably won't keep after you if you stop distributing their IP.

If, on the other hand, you were making a profit off their IP, then you are a full-fledged IP pirate and things could get ugly. So don't.

[Jack Simth]

Erax: Only one order of magnitude? I thought it was two or three...

[ June 18, 2003, 21:24: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

[Erax]

Yes, it might be two or three now that you mention it. Information travels at the speed of light, after all.

[Atrocities]

It can hurt a business severly if someone is freely distributing stuff that is closely related to the product the business is selling. That is actually part of the reason for patent and copyright laws; it helps protect the little businesses. Suppose, for instance, that company X produces a new (copyrighted/patented) software algorythm that allows an OS to intelligently adapt to a new situation invisibly. Now, suppose Microsoft feels threatened by this, steals the algorythm, and starts distributing it free of charge. Microsoft is big, and can absorb the loss. X is not, and can't compete. Once X goes out of business, Microsoft can buy and use or suppress the algorythm. Copyright and patent law helps to prevent this. It used to be that patents expired after 20 years and copyrights after 75 - but I have heard that has changed recently.

Oh ya like this has ever happened.

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
Oh ya like this has ever happened.

I said helps to prevent, not prevents.

[Geckomlis]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
It used to be that patents expired after 20 years and copyrights after 75 - but I have heard that has changed recently.

As for unconstitutional: The constitution actually makes specific allowance for copyrights and patents:

quote:

---

From The United States Constitution, Article 1, section 8(Powers vested in Congress):
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inverntors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

---

The problem is that “for limited times” has become a defacto “for all time”. When that limited time expired, works were supposed to enter the public domain. This is not occurring anymore. Congress regularly extends the period of copyright, so essentially nothing has entered the public domain from this process since the late 1940’s. Congress does this in response to lobbyists working on the behalf of the uber media corporations. This corrupts the balance between author’s rights and the public good. FYI: The USA is very unique in its view of copyright. Other countries have author’s rights traditions and are not particularly concerned about an abstract public good.

[ June 18, 2003, 22:21: Message edited by: geckomlis ]