I have done some research. The following is safe to make: 1) Any character from any book. As long as the character is your interpretation of what that character looked like, you may make a model and give it away free (or even sell it). That means that you can legally make and sell or distribute an Orc, as long as your Orc is based on your idea of what an Orc looked like, from the reading of the book, and not based on someone else's visual interpretation, like the version from the film. When a company buys the rights for a book to make a film, they only buy the rights to use the plot for their interpretation of the story in a film. No other rights are given, not even the name. So you may call your Orc a Lord of the Rings Orc, as long as you base him on the book, and not on the film version. The exception to this rule is that some names may be copyrighted. If you name your figure a vampire, you are safe, but if you call him Dracula, you may have to search and see if the name is safe to use. Some names are not copyrighted, and a reliable guide is to look it up in a dictionary. The word Frankenstein, when used to describe a man-made monster, is prefectly acceptable, as the use of the word has long transcended the original meaning of the name of a doctor in a book. Comic characters are all copyrighted by the way. But you may make a superman based on the dictionary definition of the word, as long as it bears no relation to the comic book character. superman (P) Pronunciation Key (spr-mn) n. -A man with more than human powers. -An ideal superior man who, according to Nietzsche, forgoes transient pleasure, exercises creative power, lives at a level of experience beyond standards of good and evil, and is the goal of human evolution. Also called overman. Usually, if the word appears in a dictionary, it is not copyrighted or trademarked. If it is, it will say so, as in this entry for Kleenex: Kleenex (P) Pronunciation Key (klnks) - A trademark used for a soft facial tissue. 2) Any object that has been paid for by tax payers money. This means that you may legally model, and give away or sell, your model of the space shuttle. This also applies to almost all military vehicles, on the condition that you do not use the manufacturer name in your advertising, naming or specifications. For example, you may release and give away or sell an F15 Eagle, but you may not give away or sell a MacDonald Douglass F15 Eagle. They own the trade rights on the name of their company, but not on the object they have manufactured, as it was paid for by the tax payer and in a democracy belongs to all the citizens of that country. MacDonald Douglass can prevent any other company from making an aircraft called an F15 Eagle, but they cannot stop anyone making any image, film, model, animation, parody or sketch using the name or representing the aircraft in question. 3) Clothing cannot be copyrighted in an image or a model, but the name of the clothing can. You can make a model of Gucci dress, legally, and if you call it the Damsel of the Night dress, you are perfectly safe. As long as you do not try to pass it off as a Gucci dress, no-one can touch you. 4) Branded advertising items. You can legally make, and give away or sell, a model of a billboard with a Coca Cola sign on it, as long as you call the model a Billboard, and not a Coca Cola Billboard. As long as the buyer knows that he is buying a 3D representation of a real world item, it is legal. The legal implication only comes into play when it comes to the use to which the 3D item will be put, which is not the concern of the person who made the item. 5) While celebrities have some measure of protection against using their likeness, the same does not apply to publicly elected officials. You pay their salary, and they work for you, and you may make a 3D model of George Bush. This means you may legally make a model of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, but not of a Terminator that looks like Arnold Schwarzenegger. You may of course, make your own version of what you think a Terminator looks like, because you read the book, remember. 6) You may make and give away or sell a 3D representation of any real world item, as long as you do not use the manufacturers name, even if that model is a perfect copy of the real world item. You may make a washing machine that looks exactly like the General Electric washing machine in your home, and as long as you call it washing machine (a generic name), and not a General Electric Washing Machine, you are legal. Even if the model contains prefect copies of patented parts, you are still legal, as the parts you have made cannot actually perform the function that the patent says they can. (According to patent law, you are only guilty if your version can perform the same function as the object you have copied). 7) You may model, sell, distribute and give away any model of any building that is open to the public, using it's real name. You can make a model of the Chrysler Building, and call it that, and you are legal. The only things you are not allowed to distribute are models that would invade privacy or restricted access laws. That means you cannot model the exact inner workings of the bank vault at Fort Knox, as that is restricted and protected. But you can legally model all the parts that can be seen by the public without restriction. You may not legally model the inside of someones private house or property. Modelling the inside of Sharon Stone's bedroom would be illegal. But if no-one knew that it was the inside of her bedroom, and you did not call it "Sharon Stone's Bedroom", you are still legal. 8) Lastly, in many cases, it would take a simple e-mail to get permission to make a model. Many people who own copyrights and trademarks are alive, have websites or contact methods, and many would be flattered to have 3D models made of their ideas or designs. All you need is a letter from the copyright/trademark holder, with a real signature, so e-mail permission is not acceptable, it needs to be snail mail. Note that this would be easier to get from an individual than from a large corporation like Warner Brothers, Marvel or Paramount. Legal documents are only neccesary in most cases when you intend to make profit from the model.

Very thorough and very helpful!

Good advice but not 100% accurate. For example. The likeness of the Empire State Building in trademarked. I recently found this out while creating images for a television program. However, if you change the window alignment you are fine. The same is true of h Sears Tower. Therefore not all buildings open to the public are safe.

OK, I looked at British Law concerning Big Ben and places like that. Maybe the American law is different on this issue.

Well, although it's uninvited, and I seem to be pissing folks off when I try to help of late, here's something to add: Regarding #7, you have to be exceedingly careful with recently built buildings and boat hulls. Both of these items were recently added to US copyright law (and, by treaty, to all WIPO and Berne convention countries, as well). This is, however, copyright. Also, as noted, several buildings with unique and distinctive appearances (notably, them really tall ones) have trademarks on their likeness. I'd also like to say that #6 was really well done. 5 does, to a certain extent, have the weakness in that some political figures are using privacy laws to block use of, um, unflattering imagery. It's still uncommon, but is a growing trend. 3 is good. The only caveat I'll add, based on experience alone, is do not use any trademarked or copyright images in the textures. IE, make your own. Also, in the specific example (which is a good one!), tread carefully -- CCC has some pretty potent trademarks on them and they do get trigger happy even on fan art. err, that is, don't mess with the coca-cola company. Call 'em first (they is nice people on the phone). in number one, don't rely entirely on the dictionary to make that estimation for you. Dictionaries are often sued for trademark issues -- because they aren't perfect. Don't forget that if you have a question about a trademark, you can actually look it up most of the time and all it costs is a couple minutes online. The us Patent and Trademark office maintains TESS, whcih is a great resource. IT's not perfect (only about a third of the image based trademarks are there, and likeness' are tough to find in it), but for words and such it's got every single one. yes, it's free -- to anyone, in or out of the US. Also, tread carefully with the Superman one insofar as comics book type stuff goes. Go more towards the Nietzche variant that a comic book one for safety, and, do not put him in an outfit that uses the same primary colors. There were three cases involving similar characters in costuming and strength, and DC won every time. (Except one of the fawcett ones, but then they ended up owning fawcett anyway, so they got shazam :() Also, don't confuse trademark and copyright. It is easy to do at times, but it will always get you in trouble if you do. Great advice.

Frankestein was written by Mary Shelly more than one century ago, the same as with Dracula by Brian Stocker based on Drakul from Romenia, much older yet. You can use those names freely, as many old personages and there are a lot of them. A very simple rule, if the personage is older than a century you can use it, if is less you must research if you can or cannot.

Actually, as to the Billboard with a Coca Cola logo, you may be able to legally model and distribute the billboard, but any renders created by the end user of the product would be a violation of Trademark laws as they are a "Visual Representation of a Registered Trademark."

And the best advice is of course to follow your own judgement. Just because a few greedy corporations and corrupt polititians have managed to push through some new laws to increase their bottom line doesnt necessarily mean you have to roll over and obey. Nil illegitimo carborundum ! :-)

This is very helpful information and obviously took some time to gather and share. Thanks :)

Regarding #1, So we can create characters from books, very good, im attempting my own first char from Tolkien's world. So I assume it's as allowable to use a complete char name, like Turin Turambar, or Bilbo Baggins, as to use a "generic" fictional race name such as Orc or Troll? As to the visual end result - If you market or advertise a freebie or retail item, with only the item title of "Bilbo Baggins from LOTR" or "Tolkien's Bilbo" etc, but your bilbo looks suprisingly like a rankin/bass animation, or your Aragorn is a dead ringer of the actor Viggo, where do you stand legally? If there is no mention of Peter Jackson's movie, or Ralph Bakshi's Movie, or Rankin/Bass' television specials in the product/freebie name and description, how close can any created poser char be visually to any of these previously displayed versions?

If I take my trusty videocamera and film myself kicking the Invisible Man's butt while you can clearly see a billboard advertising Coca Cola in the background, they can sue me for "Visual Representation of a Registered Trademark." Not likely. That is what is meant by a real world item. I am not claiming to be selling Coca Cola, or claiming to have anything to do with their company. I am representing the real world in a visual format. The distinction, "real world item", is very important. If it is something that is seen as part of the real world, and you represent it in art, you cannot be legally sued for anything. Can you imagine watching a TV program like "Sex in the City", with every billboard and advertising sign blacked out or blurred? No, because that is the real world. And a 3D animation falls under the same rules.

From what I read, the names of characters in books are not copyrighted. The author can copyright the name though. This is the case with the name "James Bond", from what I can figure out. But from what I can figure out, this is very rare, so you should, theoretically be able to use the exact names, although I would do my own research to make sure if I was you. As for "Aragorn is a dead ringer of the actor Viggo", there is no way you could get away with it.The actor could sue you, the film company could, and even the clothes designer could. That does not mean that they will, but they could. But if you read Lord of the Rings, and based the character on your own imagination, then there is no way that he would end up looking like Viggo. And that is what is important. You must have some element of design, or some feature, that clearly makes this creation your own, and not a copy of someone elses representation of the same character. If you look at Orca Designs ORC CLAN WARS package, those Orcs do not look like the film versions. This makes what he has done perfectly legal and acceptable.

This is where it breaks down to interpretation by the observer. You may consider the Billboard a representation of a "real world object" but the lawyers for the Coca Cola Bottling company are going to argue that it is a representation of "the Coca Cola logo" and it is up to a jury to decide which it really is. The intent of the creator is not as important as the interpretation of the viewer(s). In live action video or photography, this argument does not apply because they cannot argue that you are duplicating a logo as real life is not a duplication. ;)

Movies are based on books. Many authors of books gives a very good description on how their personages look, some authors even adds illustration in theirs book about their personages. If the movie maker follows the description of the personages from the book then the personage that you will create following the book will be similar to the movie, and the movie company will not be able to do anything against you. The problem is when the movie maker does not follow the book and create his own version of the character. One reason can be, is that the movie maker want to put his prefered movie star and this movie star is very different to the book's character, so the company changes the characteristics of the personage. Other times, the movie company changes completely the original book, as the aberration and abomination done to the work of Homer in the movie Troy. In those cases, if you follow the movie you are not following the book, and in this case the movie company has the rights of his own and particular version of the personages.

Troy was based on the work of Homer?????? Lol. You could have fooled me. Then again, who knows what the movie companies are thinking. Apparently they claim that Titanic was based on real events as well, and that is obviously not true. Who would be stupid enough to build a ship like that, and then try to actually go to America with it. Just trying some humour, sorry.

I also want to know how the Roman soldiers managed to survive with those tiny clothes with snow and winter.....

"In live action video or photography, this argument does not apply because they cannot argue that you are duplicating a logo as real life is not a duplication." I don't understand that at all. A photograph bears the same relation to its subject as a render does. Incidentally, I seem to recall that the Tolkien estate claimed/claims the rights on all uses of the word "hobbit" on the grounds that the word was invented by JRRT (it wasn't). So you may be on safe ground with an orc (clearly a standard English word) but not with a nazgul (an invention - unless it is actually a Farsi word, I don't know).

#2 is puzzling me : what if a french guy would want to make a model of an F-15 ? Obviously, I haven't payed a single eurocent for it...

flmmkrelabs <<The likeness of the Empire State Building in trademarked. I recently found this out while creating images for a television program. However, if you change the window alignment you are fine. The same is true of h Sears Tower. Therefore not all buildings open to the public are safe. >> ynsaen >> ...recently built buildings and boat hulls. Both of these items were recently added to US copyright law (and, by treaty, to all WIPO and Berne convention countries, as well). This is, however, copyright. Also, as noted, several buildings with unique and distinctive appearances (notably, them really tall ones) have trademarks on their likeness. << I'm astonished that buildings in existence in reality, certainly "a real world item", can be either copyrighted or trademarked. If I am doing an animated (or not animated) movie with a flyover scene of Los Angeles, Chicago, NY, etc., I must get permission to film certain real buildings? Is that really possible? If so, where/how do I find out what buildings are protected? ::::: Opera :::::

Buildings have rights too, I guess... I'm a graphic design living near Seattle, Washington and I know for a fact that you cannot use the Space Needle in your designs unless it is part of the skyline of Seattle, and not "prominent" in any way. A few companies have gotten in trouble for trying to use it as part of their business ID. It's too bad really, 'cuz what they really have rights on is the shape of the building. That's what makes it one of a kind.

The fact is that most copyright/trademark holders won't care too much if you make a model of thier product/billboard/image - until you either use it in a way that they find offensive or degrading to the product/billboard/image (ie using a CCC billboard in a Pepsi commercial) or you use it to make a lot of money at which point they either want a share or want it all (normally the latter)

In general american copyright law has become so redicules it is considered a joke by most sane people and has produced some really stupid (and profitable for the lawyers) cases.

As for a render being the same as a photograph - I think you will find that falls down on the arguement that to produce the render of any trademarked item you must first have modelled it (the same is not true of photography.

Message edited on: 12/02/2004 09:44

Possibly, possibly not. I could take a photo of a billboard advert and then use it as a texture on a billboard model.

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

operaguy; Ghost Busters got sued by some building designer (can't remember the name) for their opening library scene for the designer said the set was designed based on one of the actual building he designed somewhere (can't remember which/where), even though Ghost Busters' designers claimed that it wasn't intentional....can't remember the outcome. I imagine that is different then driving by or flying by while filming but even so, if you build a prop set on Universal's Lot that 'looks like' a building design, what's different then driving by the actual building and filming it?

Helgard, you didn't give the sources for your research, but check into the copyright forum and do a few searches on your topics. Many of your points have been extensively discussed and documented. Your conclusions are partially or wholly wrong in several instances (e.g. clothing, buildings, celebrities, real world items). The other point to consider is that somebody who thinks they've been ripped off or injured can still sue you, whether or not you think you're right, whether or not you think they have any rights in the matter.

So what are we looking at now as to the future of Poser items? It seems that the marketplace has always abounded with characters from movies and television, which were made to be as close as possible to the actor that plays the char. Seems that is exactly what customers wanted, to get a dead ringer likeness of thier favorite hollywood chars to play with in poserworld. Is all this going to end now, with no new such products and all such existing products pulled from availablity? This really puts a damper in all the encouragement ive gotten to "go for and make a merchant outta yerself". My bilbo character, based on a visual represtation of an animated TV show, obviously cannot be a complete match as he isnt drawn, he is poserclay and textures, but how do I know when ive gotten "too-close" to a poserworld likeness that ive risked infringment? Dammit, I really WANTED to make available a char that would appeal specifically to fans of the Animation I saw as a kid :(

"what if a french guy would want to make a model of an F-15 ?"
Well..., you can make a scene of a Mirage shooting down some F-15s. Also you will need a not copyrighted smoke prop.

Message edited on: 12/02/2004 13:29

Although this is good advice, let's look at the reality of the situation: Point #2: Selling an "F-15" model will probably require a name change. My "Military Assault Helicopter" was originally called the "Apache Helicopter". When I uploaded it here, I was told that the word "Apache" was a trademark of Boeing Corporation and that I would not be allowed to use "Apache" as the name of my product (even though I never mentioned the word "Boeing" anywhere). And, as I have stated out before- you may be fully able to make a character from a book and upload it, but the real issue is whether Renderosity will allow it. You can argue all day long about how it's "free usage" or "fan art", but if Renderosity feels it's a copyright violation, the link to your item will be removed. The other point to consider is that somebody who thinks they've been ripped off or injured can still sue you, whether or not you think you're right, whether or not you think they have any rights in the matter. And this is a sad fact of American life. Even if someone sues you (and you know you're right), you will still have to spend thousands of dollars to hire an attorney to respond to the lawsuit. Sure, you may win in court, but you will have lost a lot of money. --John

So what are we looking at now as to the future of Poser items? No change the future of poser items. ALthough the likelihood of an expanded market and greater originality is awfully high. only a change in the location for where these items can be found. Is all this going to end now, with no new such products and all such existing products pulled from availablity? Highly unlikely -- greed is a potent force, but an even greater one is love of these things. People will do this for as long as these cool things are made. Some people will give them away, some people will sell them. They simply won't be doing it here. "My bilbo character, based on a visual represtation of an animated TV show, obviously cannot be a complete match as he isnt drawn, he is poserclay and textures, but how do I know when ive gotten "too-close" to a poserworld likeness that ive risked infringment?" Write Rankin-Bass and ask them. Also, write Tolkien Enterprises and gain clearance for the name. Note that as a merchant, there is nothing that stops anyone from writing the rights owners and asking. All they can say is yes or no. And ya might even make a friend in the process. "In general american copyright law has become so redicules it is considered a joke by most sane people and has produced some really stupid (and profitable for the lawyers) cases" incorrect. It is considered a joke by people who haven't taken the time to learn or understand it. Which is NOT easy and is NOT quickly done. Oddly enough, this was important enough to the founding fathers of the USA that they wrote it into the Constitution. "If I am doing an animated (or not animated) movie with a flyover scene of Los Angeles, Chicago, NY, etc., I must get permission to film certain real buildings? Is that really possible? If so, where/how do I find out what buildings are protected?" Yes, yes, and if it is a copyright you will have to contact the building owner, typically. If it is a trademark you might be able to find it using TESS online at the USPTO website. "#2 is puzzling me : what if a french guy would want to make a model of an F-15 ? Obviously, I haven't payed a single eurocent for it... " Oddly enough, it's ok. "From what I read, the names of characters in books are not copyrighted. The author can copyright the name though. This is the case with the name "James Bond", from what I can figure out." This is why I say don't confuse trademarks and copyright, which was done here. An author cannot copyright a name. However, they can copyright a particular representation of said name. They can also Trademark that name, provided that name, in and of itself, can be shown to represent a particular good or service. If they do, as in the case of James Bond, it has to have several additional factors (in this case, the literary description of him is applied), and then it is only applicable to that specific character. James Bond the plumber can be a completely separate trademark. "If I take my trusty videocamera and film myself kicking the Invisible Man's butt while you can clearly see a billboard advertising Coca Cola in the background, they can sue me for "Visual Representation of a Registered Trademark."" Yes. Quite likely if you make money from it, and you distribute that film, and they decide they feel like it. In the case of CCC -- well, let's just say ya don't wanna go there. If it was only an issue of copyright, then yes, you would be reasonably safe in your description as given. But it is not. It is a matter of Trademark. Which is not the same as copyright. "Just because a few greedy corporations and corrupt polititians have managed to push through some new laws to increase their bottom line doesnt necessarily mean you have to roll over and obey." Were you aware that inciting others to the commission of a crime makes you an accessory to said crime under federal law? Not that this would happen, of course. Those greedy corporations and corrupt politicians would never, ever go after someone for insulting them in public forums. "And the best advice is of course to follow your own judgement." Absolutely. Just be sure that your judgement has knowledge behind it to give it some value. "Point #2: Selling an "F-15" model will probably require a name change. My "Military Assault Helicopter" was originally called the "Apache Helicopter". When I uploaded it here, I was told that the word "Apache" was a trademark of Boeing Corporation and that I would not be allowed to use "Apache" as the name of my product (even though I never mentioned the word "Boeing" anywhere)." Sadly, this is true. In fact, it rather upset certain native americans locally (for me). Won't go into the details, but let's just say it would have been an interesting legal battle had it ever moved beyond the half joking phase. "but the real issue is whether Renderosity will allow it." Well said. Not just the excerpt, but the entire thing. As I noted earlier in this post -- these things will still be made, folks. Most of the rights owners involved in this stuff don't mind if you make cool pictures (hell, most of them wish they could, too, and sit in awe of the talent displayed). They only want to make sure that if someone makes money off of what they own, that the money comes to them. "Sure, you may win in court, but you will have lost a lot of money." Not if you win. Court costs under the US system are paid by the loser, in full. But you will lose time -- and if you aren't prepared for a big fight against a large company, you may in fact find yourself trapped as the time involved costs you other things. But then, having won, if the award isn't great enough, you just sue them for damages. And make no mistake, there is an award granted.

I sent Coca Cola an invoice for placing their product in my render. They havn't got back to me yet!!! ;)

oh my. I hope you had an agreement beforehand. :S

Apache a trademark of Boeing?. I thought it was copyrighted by Geronimo!

How the ##@@%%%!! does anybody get away with copyrighting or trademarking a proper noun that is the collective name of an entire ethnic group?! That's bloody insane, not to mention a bright, shining example of legal bassackwardness. Heck, on those grounds, maybe I oughta copyright/trademark the word Newfie. Then get richer than Bill Gates, Disney, Boeing & the whole mad lot of 'em by suing everyone who infringes. Except my fellow islanders, of course. I'll just charge them a whopping big license fee for the right to use it, especially on all those bottles of "Screech". Oughta be a zillionaire in no time. ;-)

lol. well, actually, they don't own a trademark on just the word "Apache". Nor on the word "helicopter". They own a trademark that specifically applies to an assault helicopter that they have designated the "Apache" model, and the specifics therein. Doesn't mean that someone else can't use the term, just that they cannot use it as it applies specifically to that helicopter type. And most other mfg's won't make a model that has the same name -- not because of trademark issues, but because they don't want their helicopter to be associated in the minds of others with the one already made. Seems kinda, well, unoriginal...

If you use Windows in your house you must pay royalties to Billy Gates, also the with the use of Doors. I don't know if the Table is royalty free.

lol

actually, 'James Bond' was an orinthologist, who published a bird book..Ian Fleming lifted the guy's name right into the book series (the 'real' Bond's wife would occasionally answer the more persistant phone calls as Psy Galore..I kid you not..;)
Now you can use numbers..by themselves..there was a famous case where Intel sued (I think) AMD for making a '486' chip (I'm dating myself here, but I know I'll get lucky at the end of it..;) and the court ruled that you can't copyright a number (which is why the Pentium came into being..;)

Attached Link: http://www.cnn.com/US/9901/21/smiley.face/

Message edited on: 12/02/2004 16:01

1. Any object that has been paid for by tax payers money etc This may be true in the US but I'm afraid its not so in the UK. Some stuff produced in the UK by government agencies is free for anyone to use but a lot of it isn't and it can be quite a mine field. The crown's lawyers will pursue breaches of this copyright vigorously and will do so in other countries if they have to using the appropriate conventions. They also plug gaps when they find them if they don't want the exploitation to continue (as happened with bank notes a few years ago).

There are things about trademark law that people frequently fail to understand. A trademark only applies to the specific trade. In the case of Boeing's Apache, it only applies to helicopters. Windows (i.e., Microsoft) is a trademarked name (though there are those who argue that under current trademark laws, they shouldn't have been granted a trademark on a common word, but that's another argument/discussion), BUT I can open the Windows Pancake House and Microsoft can't do diddly squat about it because it's not the same trade and I'm in no way competing with them. A trademark is to protect the "mark" (name, logo, etc.) under which you "trade". It is NOT an all-inclusive exclusive right to use a word or name. Ford may well have a trademark on the name Ford, but it doesn't stop people from using the name in many, many capacities. So long as they don't use the logo (which is trademarked) or produce a vehicle with the name Ford, there's no conflict. In fact, when Apple Computers started doing business under the name Apple, Apple Corps (the Beatles' company) brought a trademark lawsuit. It was settled, as I recall, by Apple agreeing to stay out of the music business, and Apple Corps agreeing to stay out of the computer business. When Apple released the iPod, there was legal trouble, though, because it was deemed to be a violation of the agreement. The iPod, you see, is for playing music, and violates the prior agreement. And none of the above kept Gwyneth Paltrow from naming her child Apple, and none of it would stop me from opening some other business unrelated to computers and music which also has the name Apple. Big corporations don't always win, either. A man whose last name is Nissan and who owns a domain with his name won a lawsuit brought against him by the car company. He argued that the name Nissan was a month of the Jewish calender as well as his last name, that his business/website in no way capitalized on the car company's name, and the court agreed. Point of all this is that the concept that if a name is trademarked nobody else can ever use it again forever and ever is total nonsense. A trademark protects a name, logo, or similar singularly identifiable thing within a specific trade, and nothing more or less. bonni

"...none of the above kept Gwyneth Paltrow from naming her child Apple..." Let's all pray that poor youngster's an only child. I can just see the siblings now: Orange, Banana, Pineapple, Grapefruit, Mango, Papaya, Kiwi, Peach, Pear. Is that a family or a frickin' grocery list? Some people have so few brains they oughta be classed as an entirely different species. I hereby nominate her for one.

And none of this even gets into software copyrights,where people are claiming they own some of the very basic technologies used on the web today.

Attached Link: http://www.willfulinfringement.com/bibliography.asp

lmckenzie; Al Gore invented the Internet, geez I thought everyone knew that!?

JoePublic; Have you looked???

Message edited on: 12/02/2004 19:29

In 'rosity's skewed copyright view no one could come up with and amerind textures that use the tribe names that the Army uses for choppers without them saying thos names are 'protected' and can't be used

OK. I tried to get some clarity on what we are allowed to make. It seems that I am wrong. So here is my new advice: Stop making freebies. I am tired of this senseless discussion. I think I am just tired, period. I will shut up now.

Charlie_Tuna; interesting point. Why is it that the military is still using tribe's names such as Apache when High Schools have been ordered to stop? I know most of the offending schools were not using actuall tribe names but names that have been determained as dirogratory(sp?) but some where using the name Apache, Mohawks, etc and some where just using the word Chief with an Indian war bonnet as a symbol....why are schools insulting but the military is not? and JoePublic; have you found him yet?

Helgard; your are correct. The only safe art to make is to make no art at all. The only safe conversation to have is to not speak a word at all. As a matter of fact we should all play it safe and lock ourself in a closet and never step a foot out. But then we would still be in danger of the Bogert...but if you do have a Bogert in your closet he too would be guilty of infringments from Warner Bros!!!!!

Now before someone jumps on me for my nonsensical statement above let me explain. These movie makers, story tellers, and other fine artists bring into our lives new characters, new words, new ways of thinking and looking at things, new dreams, new imaginations. Now we all know little kids see these movies, read these books, see these pictures and in each generation start new trends. Bart Simpson started kids saying "Don't have a cow man" and (can't remember the girl or show) started girls saying "That's hot" and so many other trends and things in school, but as we become adults we expected to 'know better' and to go to the movies, read books but then NEVER EVER excersise any of the new and wonderful ideals that have been presented to us. Hey, as adults we are not even supposed to dream 'outside the box' or have imaginations, we are not supposed to dream up things like Shrek, or Harry Potter, or Monsters Inc; these things are "Childish and not sutable for a mature person". Reality, playing with ideas planted by others stirs the ingrediants for the Next generation of cool and trendy stuff. What would the world be like if our minds were wiped of Every movie, book, poem, trendy saying we had ever heard to prevent us from ever acidentaly slipping and using or repeating it in some part of our lives???

igohigh, That's because the American Indian Movement(AIM), the yokels behind it found they could brow beat the high schools into changing names from what they (AIM) though were 'offensive and demeening to native americans' but when they tried the same tactics of one the universities and pro teams with indian names the got 'told where to get off' the KC Chiefs, Washington Redskins, Cleveland Indians, Alanta Braves and a few universities stated they would not be changing names because major money is invested in those names, and nobody's stupid enough to try and take of the defense industry ofer what they want to name their hardware

That makes sense, but it still dosen't make sense that at one time they were chosen for they were seen as symbols of strength, integrity, unity, and a good name to give to a strong and unwelding team. But somewhere along the line (many, many, many moons later) someone suddenly decided they were demeening and offensive? An example of how times change as do the minds of the human race, what was cool yesterday is not today...I mean heck, those names were NEVER given to teams as a way for the 'white' man to degrade the 'Indians', they were chosen as honorable names and names to be proud to wear and shout out loud... :? Well, I guess that just proves my statement in post #47....

.