If we've done fan art for stuff like Batman or Star Trek should we remove those images now because due to the whole copyright upset?

1- in the two examples above, it would be trademark, not copyright. 2- I'd say probably, given the way I read the terms of service. 3 - I'm not on staff here, however, so perhaps a direct IM sent to the gallery moderators or Spike would garner swifter, more direct response.

I'd wait until I heard one way or the other..there's so much of it out there that they'd have to contact hundreds, if not thousands, of artists.

I've asked admin as I don't know the answer. I'll get back to you with a reply as soon as I hear. If it needs to be removed I will post a notice in the gallery & in the forum FIRST. I do try not to make the same mistake twice. Shoshanna

hugs to Sho :)

This reminds me. I saw on the news, just a few days ago, a story about a guy who makes his own amateur Star Trek fan movies. Basically, he gets his friends and family to play the characters on the show, and films his own episodes for other Star Trek fans to watch for free on the web.

According to what they said on the news, Paramount knows all about this, and they don't have a problem with it at all. However, they said if he EVER even attempts to gain a profit from it, they do have lawyers waiting.

Don't know if that means anything to anyone here or not, but this whole "copyright" stuff reminded me of that. It was on either CNN or MSNBC. I'm quite certain it wasn't local news.

Message edited on: 12/01/2004 13:59

Now what exactly constitues "Fan Art"? I mean like like if it's a scene of cartoon animals 'dressed' like Trekies but not a direct recreation from the movie, is that just a 'themed' image or is it "Fan Art"? If I do a render of trolls and little little people is that a Lord of the Rings 'themed' image or is it "Fan Art" even if it is not a recreation from the movie...just trolls and little people? If I do a scene of a vampire in a cape with a woman (not bloody) is that simply a 'Dracula theme' image or "Fan Art"? If I do an image of a green man with a flat head is it a 'theme' of Frankenstein or "Fan Art"? And how about Furette, is she a 'theme' or is she now considered Furry "Fan Art" in any picture I use her in? Just where is the line drawn from 'theme' and 'Fan Art'?

yeah, that sounds about right. None of the big companies want to shut anything down or such. Inevitably, it always comes about because of someone who does want to profit monetarily challenges the marks in court. And then the companies have to show good faith in protecting the rights.

Now what exactly constitues "Fan Art"? Any artistic endeavor which makes use of protected elements created by someone in homage of those marks. We'll use this rather narrow paraphrasing of the legal description (27 pages) for purposes. (Source, a paramount case from the late 70's) " mean like like if it's a scene of cartoon animals 'dressed' like Trekies but not a direct recreation from the movie, is that just a 'themed' image or is it "Fan Art"? " Fan art if the trademarked insignia of the uniforms is shown. If I do a render of trolls and little little people is that a Lord of the Rings 'themed' image or is it "Fan Art" even if it is not a recreation from the movie...just trolls and little people? Not fan art -- as described. If I do a scene of a vampire in a cape with a woman (not bloody) is that simply a 'Dracula theme' image or "Fan Art"? Not Fan art - as described. SInce the estate of Bela Lugosi still holds rights to his likeness, if your dracula resemebled him, then it would be fan art. If I do an image of a green man with a flat head is it a 'theme' of Frankenstein or "Fan Art"? Not fan art. And how about Furette, is she a 'theme' or is she now considered Furry "Fan Art" in any picture I use her in? Not fan art, in and of itself. Furrette, to some extent herself, does appear to be fan art, though. I would need to research the specifics more. Just where is the line drawn from 'theme' and 'Fan Art'? When you use the intellectual property of another, it becomes "fan art".

Samples: are these "Fan Art"? Anyone who has seen Boris Vallejo's stuff should know where I got my inspiration for the mer-couple as when as the poses they are in, and (hopfully) everyone will recognize the bride of Frankenstein. So, are these the infamous "Fan Art" types that are in question? Or does it have to be an attempt to exactly duplicate a copywritted character? "Any artistic endeavor which makes use of protected elements created by someone in homage of those marks." Both of these were 'created by *me* in 'homage' of the charcters/creators that inspired me to make the image...?

Message edited on: 12/01/2004 14:22

I must admit, despite karen's explanation in other related threads, I'm still just as confused as ever. If this has always been part of the TOS, then why did R'osity create a category for film/tv art in the first place? To me that's like saying "we refuse to deal in Product X -- oh and by the way, here's a place where you can all put your lovely little tributes to Product X." (For example: all trade in tobacco products is banned, and it always has been banned although we didn't get around to enforcing the rule until now; however we do have a smoking area and you're quite welcome to use it.) Am I the only one around here who finds that just a wee bit schizophrenic? No offense to anybody, especially people who suffer from that illness; I'd just like clarification of the matter. As it stands now, I honestly don't know what's okay or what isn't to post here -- besides the obvious sexually explicit, extreme violence and the usual no-nos, that is.

"If this has always been part of the TOS, then why did R'osity create a category for film/tv art in the first place?" That's a damn good question actually.

"SInce the estate of Bela Lugosi still holds rights to his likeness, if your dracula resemebled him, then it would be fan art." Does this mean if my vampire had a roundish face, characteristic hair cut and typical 'Dracula style' cape he would 'resemble' Bela Lugosi? Or what if he had a different, say Mike'ish face but held his cape over his face in a Bela Lugosi fashion...it would 'resemble' him? Or would it have to be an actual attempt to reproduce his face? or is it the whole 'Dracula look' using that classic hair style, cape, pointy fangs with little or no regard to his facial shape and likeness? Where the estate of Bela Lugosi may not hold a copyright to the whole 'Dracula' thing, doesn't some movie company some where hold rights to the 'style' used in the various movies? And what about the Vampirilla style costume made for Vicky, is that now a "no-no" to use in renders as well, even if we do not attempt to re-create any of the actresses that have worn that outfit?? I'm so confused as to what is allowed here anymore!????

And how about this? It's obviously a reproduction of Vampirilla's outfit, and it doesn't cover 80% of her body; have I boken 2 rules????

I still confused. I have post lots of anime fanart with no blames. There are lots of it here anime, superheroes, star trek, star wars and more. No blame have in practise become a complain. Maybe its bad to make this discussion because it can force renderosity to change praxis. Pic some Anime fanart by me.

Attached Link: A prior posting of value here

*Samples: are these "Fan Art"?* Under the definition provided, no. *Or does it have to be an attempt to exactly duplicate a copywritted character?* 1- it would be copyrighted. 2- Not *exactly*, but for general purposes, yes. *If this has always been part of the TOS, then why did R'osity create a category for film/tv art in the first place?* This is rosity. you actually need to ask? *Does this mean if my vampire had a roundish face, characteristic hair cut and typical 'Dracula style' cape he would 'resemble' Bela Lugosi?* As described, no. If, however, he looked like Lugoisi (which is a distinctive appearance), then yes. *Or what if he had a different, say Mike'ish face but held his cape over his face in a Bela Lugosi fashion...it would 'resemble' him?* no. *Or would it have to be an actual attempt to reproduce his face?* Yes. *or is it the whole 'Dracula look' using that classic hair style, cape, pointy fangs with little or no regard to his facial shape and likeness?* No. Trademarks require distinctiveness, and are measured in sum. Add enough of the fine points in the right mix -- like a recipie -- and you have the end result. *Where the estate of Bela Lugosi may not hold a copyright to the whole 'Dracula' thing, doesn't some movie company some where hold rights to the 'style' used in the various movies?* The "style", in the larger sense, isn't something one can snag. It is not distinctive enough. *And what about the Vampirilla style costume made for Vicky, is that now a "no-no" to use in renders as well, even if we do not attempt to re-create any of the actresses that have worn that outfit??* I wouldn't think so, unless you were essentially creating a "vampirella" character.

And how about this? It's obviously a reproduction of Vampirilla's outfit, and it doesn't cover 80% of her body; have I boken 2 rules???? Reproduction - Given it's a female vampire dressed as her, I'd call it fan art. Cover 80% of body - Have not seen that rule apply to the gallery. Or anything else on rendo. I've seen a rule that applies specifically to the first image and the thumbnail image for a product sold here that says 80% of the breast must be covered (which that does not meet), but nothing that would indicate breaking the rules otherwise.

Given it's a female vampire dressed as her, I'd call it fan art.

Now I'm REALLY confused! "a female vampire dressed as" Vampirilla but not morphed to look like the actress(s) that played her is as "Fan Art" BUT a male vampire dressed as Dracula but Not morphed to resemble Bela Lugosi is Not "Fan Art"????????

What if I put Mike in that skimpy outfit instead? Would that still be fan art? (at least I wouldn't have to worry about covering 80% of his body part to pass the TOS) Message edited on: 12/01/2004 15:27

"What if I put Mike in that skimpy outfit instead? Would that still be fan art?
(at least I wouldn't have to worry about covering 80% of his body part to pass the TOS)"

No, that would not be fan art. If you morphed him to resemble the character (not the actresses, sir, the character) but still male, it might even be parody.

Oh, and there is no requirement in the TOS that states 80% of the body must be covered.
Edtied to add: Also, read the post I made at the link provided, please. It might help. (not so much the rest of the thread...)

Message edited on: 12/01/2004 15:35

So the following images in my gallery are safe? The Smurfs: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=670520&Start=1&Artist=PapaBlueMarlin&ByArtist=Yes Star Trek: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=413264&Start=55&Artist=PapaBlueMarlin&ByArtist=Yes Batman: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=338855&Start=73&Artist=PapaBlueMarlin&ByArtist=Yes

Well, it would seem that SOMEONE always has the IP rights to anything created out of his/er imagination. Well, probably not saying it right but... As I understand it, Tolkein's hobbits, that were the creation of his mind, are protected (in some legal manner) from use in books and images. IF this is the case, then isn't SOMEONE out there the original "imaginator" of a vampire and its distinctive fangs? If so, wouldn't it follow that one is encroaching on illegal ground to ever produce an image of something with distinctive fangs, bat wings, and say it sucks blood? I mean, it doesn't have to be a likeness of Beli Lugosi only, does it? And if I can freely make images depicting vampires, then why can I not (as I understand it), make images depicting hobbits (and all their distinctive markings that would make any viewer instantily think, "hobbit")?

1st one -- title makes direct use of a trademark property. Otherwise, no, not really. 2nd one -- Again title. OTherwise, my opinon is that it is ok. 3rd one -- The image itself does make use of trademarks (the bat-logo on the outfit)and would, I expect, be subject to removal. Note that these are my opinions. Renderosity's may differ.

The issue here is not whether companies will allow "fan art" or not. The real issue is whether Renderosity is comfortable allowing "fan art" in their galleries or Free Stuff sections. So, while Lucas may encourage people to make their own models and images, Renderosity is "playing it safe" by removing these things from their site. By extension, you should play it safe also and remove these kinds of images before the admins delete your image and you are given a "warning" on your "member record". I know the Free Stuff and Galleries may become bland without the sci-fi and comic-book images, but I suppose blandess is preferred over a potential run-in with Lucas or Paramount. --John

BTW, just what is this "80%" that I keep reading about? What are people referring to? I tried the TOS and scanned it rather quickly but can't find any reference.

But "Vampirilla" has been played by more then one actess, only the suit has remained the same, so would the 'suit' not be the issue and not weather it is worn by male or female. And there never was a real person in history named Vampirilla. And that same goes for Dracula, Bela is not the only actor who has ever played Dracula and the 'outfit' is what has reamined a constant throughout movie history however the actuall Dracula himself we only know from paintings and never wore the classic Hollywood costume....so would not any character wearing a black cape with high collar and red lining be considered "look-a-like" and fall into the "Fan Art" catagory....?

"IF this is the case, then isn't SOMEONE out there the original "imaginator" of a vampire and its distinctive fangs?" I do believe that would come under folklore & mythology, which have, (AFAIK but remember he ain't a lawyer!) always been fair game. It might even have come from some ancient religion. In any case I think it's fairly safe to assume the statute of limitations has long since run out. Btw, did I or did I not hear/read somewhere that "hobbit" was an Old English term for some type of faery critter until Tolkien appropriated/recycled it to describe his Shirefolk?

"IF this is the case, then isn't SOMEONE out there the original "imaginator" of a vampire and its distinctive fangs?" Probably. But that's over simplifying things. Read the link above. This isn't something that's very easy to siplify, and, point blank, it means you do have to understand the basics of copyright and trademark law. Which artists should have, anyway, as they are the most important laws in relation to what they do. Which applies to the rest, as well. Copyright: http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/ Trademark: http://www.uspto.gov/

JHoagland; the issue I am trying to figure out is "Just what is Fan Art", does it have to be a direct duplication of something, or a look-a-like, or merely resemble, or idealistic. Just how direct 1:1 does it have to be to be banned, or how 'distant but yet bing to the mind' before it's banned....

When one starts throwing around the words "Fan Art" then ChuckEvans' post starts coming into play....just about Everything in some way has it's roots somewhere, except for a few rare instances that someone comes up with something so different that it become 'original' and 'accepted'. As I understand it even the classic 'Parody' themes can fall into a 'fan art' catagory and 'parody' is not nessesarily the outragous type 'swap a man for a woman' theme but like Chuck says it can be a subbtle as little people that some preseve to be Hobbits or big bulky creatures that are preseved to be Trolls or wretched creatures that are preseved to be Orc or Ogres or a man flying around in a spaceship that can be preseved as any number of space related movies (that list alone would require it's own forum!)

I'm still confused why Vampirilla's outfit is fan art regarless who wears it but Dracula's outfit is not? this seams like a famale thing here....why can't guys have 'protected' designs but women can? that sounds kinda catty to me!

Message edited on: 12/01/2004 16:19

igohigh, your answers are ONLY going to be found by educating yourself on the laws that apply. You are seeking a definition point that can't be explained adequately unless you also explain the nature of copyright and trademark. And the only way you'll get that is to go and look it up and think about it. I'm trying to help. If you want a good, happy guideline, well, here ya go: Don't post anything using a recognizable symbol that someone else made. It's not accurate, it's not correct; but you know what, for folks who "don't have the time or patience" to learn about something that is critical to them, it will suffice. If you recognize it, odds are someone else will, too. How's that? Will that work? you know, I'm really trying to help here. This isn't something that you can just apply common sense to willy nilly and think you are right. These are things that deal in details brought together as sums of parts. Like recipies. Everybody has a great apple pie recipie, and they are all different, even if they are made up of the same things. nah, forget it.

could Renderosity have a section just for fan art just like Elfwood does? i have fan art of the FFX ladies so i'm kind of curious if i'll have to remove it..

From a legal standpoint -- only a copyright lawyer -- or the copyright holder -- can give you a legitimate legal opinion on what contitutes permissible fan art, and what doesn't.

And only a court of law can issue a final ruling.

Likewise, only a site admin can tell you what is allowed in the galleries, and what isn't. I would suggest an IM to an admin: if you want a definitive statement, and not just another site member's opinion.

I could really care less about all this. If you like my stuff, it stays. If you don't like it, it goes. Whether I get a mark on my "permanent record" or not, I don't care. I produce characters. Characters of existing characters and original characters. They'll be here until they're taken off or the site dies. Either way, life goes on.

Wow, pretty soon there will be very, very little than can be created and posted; so much for inspirational heritage. I once had a teacher who taught us that absolutely nothing, nothing at all whatsoever we imagine or can think of is not somehow inspired by something or someone somewhere, whether quite obvious or subliminal or even if just from a forgotten dream we have had. Humankind has created and invented and artistrated all through history from ideas absorbed and refurbished in their own new way. Not everything in life can possibly be trademarked or copyrighted or even the human body will one day be off limits to artists once someone realizes a way to own the human form some way; and then, well, you can surely just throw poser away. I think it's all gotten out of hand myself. I am surprised other forums with stores and galleries are even allowed to exist and someone doesn't own that whole idea to themselves as yet, but then again, cars are cars are cars are cars but how come Ford doesn't sue GM for making a car and vice versa, they all look like cars and drive like cars and do the same thing in every way. Suppose even words themselves could be owned, as fonts already are, and soon we will have to wonder if whatever we utter will be an infraction too, because someone already said it and claims they own the phrase or word. And if anyone copies or expresses what I have wrote here with any similarity in the slightest way, I assure you I will sue.

And if anyone copies or expresses what I have wrote here with any similarity in the slightest way, I assure you I will sue.

I just copied and pasted the quotation.

Hire a lawyer.

(I'm joking.......)

---

Like so many other things, this issue is an extremely annoying shade of grey.

You place your bets, and you take your chances.......

Or else you play it safe, and permit nothing.

Attached Link: http://www.gutenberg.org/howto/copyright-howto

Basicly- If you need to be absoultly safe- ONLY use items made before 1923 like Project Gutenberg does- Here are the rules at this link. http://www.gutenberg.org/howto/copyright-howto

How much you wanna bet once a Big Enough Player creates the first designer human (I mean a complete genetically engineered clone, not a "test tube baby") said Player will be able to patent, trademark & copyright real live people as opposed to graphic or literal representations thereof? Honestly, the mind boggles ...

Are their any examples in real life with fanart that have been taken to the court of law? I have heard about a writer cause a summons against pornographic pictures. But I talking about non-porno/erotic pictures.

Attached Link: http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3114977a10,00.html

Legal eagles target Tarzan "Burroughs wrote Tarzan of the Apes in 1912 and set up Edgar Rice Burroughs Inc a year later. His estate has had a long history of zealously guarding Tarzan." And it all comes down to money... the one with the deepest pockets wins.

How much you wanna bet once a Big Enough Player creates the first designer human (I mean a complete genetically engineered clone, not a "test tube baby") said Player will be able to patent, trademark & copyright real live people as opposed to graphic or literal representations thereof? According to the US Patent office genetic patents can not be allowed for a complete genome. You can patent parts of the genome, individual genes and sequences, but the entire human is off limits. Beyond that, even patenting a genome would not grant you trademark on it. Copyright would only apply to the specific genetic combination you used to create your human (if at all), so other human not sharing that genetic pattern would be fine. Don't boggle too much. That idea was already covered and granted precedent years ago. Google for "bacteria patent genome" to learn more. =)

i think the best solution is to remove all that seems more or less like a copyright/trademark/fanart thing, remove all, stop using it, stop making it, and let them have fun with their lawyers and tos i think that the next step is that i will stop being FAN of a few brands, so i wont be tempted to make fan art based on them, then i'll boycott/forbid me to buy or like some other things, so world will be easier for me as far as i'm concerned, i removed all... even the pictues for which i had the authorisation of editor or copyright older ! as the ONLY "useful" feature of renderosity is to allow download over and over again of all your RMP purchase (can be useful in case of a hard drive crash, a cdrom backup failure etc), and as now the policy is "record a warning on member's account first, kill him second, and ask question when he is banned", i did not want to loose my rmp history, and so far now, i wont contribute to renderosity anymore. well not a big/great deal as i was unimportant member. but i hope than when better artists and more talented/influent members of the communauty will begin to have problems too, they will think twice about their involvment

But Softriver; laws are re-written and over turned all the time. First you could pray in school and then you couldn't, first you couldn't wear G-stings in public and then you could and then you couldn't again (females only - man I wish that included males too!!!). First California could have a Pagan God and crosses on it's state seal and now it can't (but why does the new seal contain a mission??)
And I thought patents where only good for like 7 years without re-newing it? What if said Player camps out on the patent building's door step and beats the US Patent holder to the window one day? I think LornaW summed it all best; Wow, pretty soon there will be very, very little than can be created and posted; so much for inspirational heritage. DHO! I'm gonna get sued! DHO! again....I think Hommer Simpson holds the copywrite to the phrase "Dho!"......

Message edited on: 12/01/2004 18:06

The whole thing might be off limits, but if my hypothetical Player were to aquire whatever rights that can & do exist on all those bits and pieces (or find the means to change/use the law to their own advantage)I daresay it could be done. Sure, it'd take time and money and the sort of ambition and drive that put a man on the moon, but it's not totally outside the realm of possibility. And if some movie mogul reads this and swipes my concept for his next blockbuster screenplay, I'm gonna sue his assets off -- after I hex him polka-dotted just for fun. >:)

This isn't something that's very easy to siplify, and, point blank, it means you do have to understand the basics of copyright and trademark law. Which artists should have, anyway, as they are the most important laws in relation to what they do. I agree with this completely. Artists really should educate themselves about this stuff, even if it's just the basics. There are so many good reasons to understand these things, and no good reasons not to. You need to know your own rights in order to protect them, and know other people's rights in order to keep from abusing them and breaking the law (in other words, to keep your own butt out of hot water). I suggest that if you REALLY want to know, do the research yourself and find out. There are tons of copyright/trademark education sites out there, many written in plain (non-legalese) language. There's even a copyright forum right here at Renderosity. And as also mentioned in this thread, if you have questions about the specifics of the gallery, contact the site admins and see what they say. They're the ones who set and enforce policies here. bonni

This whole copywrite thing has gotten silly. I took down my gallery because I wanted a freah start and because I had a picture that was "inspired" by madonna. All of my art has been inspired by things Ive seen etc.Im so tired of everything that has being going on here. Im quiting rendo for awhile. It most definetly isnt fun anymore. Sad really cause this place is where I started really learning about poser. I met alot of cool people and they helped me out alot when I needed it. Ive spent alot of money here as well, which is also going to stop. The whole pay pal thing really synched it for me. Whcuh sucks cause X-mas is comeing up and my fiance was planning on buying me stuff off my wish list.

Is there an admin who can tell us whether we need to remove these types of images or not?

Elizabyte; good point....if I were attempting to sell something, and yes even as an amateur hobbyist it is my responsibility to have a general knowledge for 'ignorance is no excuse' in a court of law. BUT, the topic here is how does This Community (or what's left of it) views the term "Fan Art". Actually the 'true' definition can only be made by the specific holder of any copyrighted material....one holder of say Star Trek may be offended by furry critters wearing clothes the color of the Enterprise crew (not talking about the emblem now, just the colors and clothing style) while yet another holder of say Lord of the Rings may have no opinion over a wizard in white with a long beard riding atop a white stallion. But here the issue is 'How Far Does These New Rules Going To Effect Us Members Here at Renderosity'? Yes, obvious Fan Art is Fan Art but aside from going to court to decide whether your or I can post our next render, what definition is Renderosity going to put on it? About "IM a moderator".....isn't that why these threads are popping up, because no one has come right out and explained it to the members yet? Therefore we come to the forum in hopes of finding answers. I KNOW! Lets BAN all threads that question authority!!!!

spudgrl; I know what you mean...this is the only community that tends to make me wish I had never picked up a crayola as a child, I lurked long here before ever posting since there was so much turmoil that it made me often afraid to even launch Poser!
When Rendo starts getting me down too much I just run back to RDNA and pick them ;p
(poor Syyd!)

As a matter of fact; Is Poser even "Art" and if not (as claimed by so many) then how can anything made from it be 'Fan Art'?

Message edited on: 12/01/2004 18:32

"Is Poser even "Art" ..." Oh, you just had to open up that can of worms! lol

Is Poser "Art?" No, I don't think so. It is, however, an undeniably handy tool for 3D illustrations.

See? Told ya so! ::Byrdie sticks out her tongue at igohigh, ducks a flying jump boot and runs off cackling madly::

Message edited on: 12/01/2004 18:59

Riddokun, to protect your primary Renderosity account from harrasment and censorship, just create some throwaway hotmail adresses and create a few secondary accounts for your gallery and posting needs. The small minded of this world cant stand personal freedom. They are angered and bitter, and to them the bogeyman is everywhere. Its not about the money, its about control. These poor souls never received a gift, so they are unable to share. Its useless to argue, because this is a mindset that isnt based in reality of course. But as much as I feel pity for them, there is absolutely no reason to allow them to make your own life miserable, too. But sorry, have to run now... There is some copyright violation waiting to be done. :-)