Renderosity Forums / Poser - OFFICIAL
Welcome to the Poser - OFFICIAL Forum
Forum Coordinators: RedPhantom
Poser - OFFICIAL F.A.Q (Last Updated: 2024 Nov 21 6:06 am)
Subject: gallery question
There is a time limit to copyrights. If it's a project Gutenberg, it's public domain in the U.S. Do a search on H. G. Wells while you're there. War of the Worlds is public domain too. So is Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan, and the Wizard of Oz. Make furry footed Munchkins to your heart's content. Call your fairies Tinkerbell. The thing to remember is that 90% of modern copyrights are based on expired (and in Star War's case, unexpired) copyrights by other people. So long as you don't copy exactly, or to the point where a trademark is involved, you can probably get away with it. No worries. The big exceptions are things like Mickey Mouse, Star Wars (although Lucas stole so many ideas from OTHER authors a lot if his stuff wouldn't pass close insepection), and comic book Superheros. Also something to keep in mind is labeling. Specificly calling something in your art the same as something that activly protexts it's copyright can get you in trouble, where if you just keep your mouth shut you're safe. Don't name your pictures "Mickey Mouse Meets Godzilla with Superman watching approvingly" and believe that you're safe. On the other hand, a mouse in clothing fighting giant lizard with a laser knife, while the superhero smiles (avoiding the obvious trademark infringemnts in the picture itself), should be perfectly acceptable.
well i came to poser as a hobbyist to have fun expressign mythoughts and imaginations through pictures.. i already have a job, studies and such, i dotn have time to study billion of international laws and court report and "jurisprudence" an such. If i wanted to do that, i would be studying law and become a lawyer :( so if having fun with pictures puts me in rouble and piss me off too much and is more a pain than a joy, i just stop and that's all !!! ps: joepublic: well i guess that renderosity coudl easily track down who is the owner of the primary and secondary/fake accounts and take legal or discpline sanction against all accounts at same time so , NO, i wont even bother creating new account or something. For me, renderosity will for now on be a small shoppin cart that i will let as is and wont really bother again anymore... as for other websites, i did not found any that suited my needs...
BUT, the topic here is how does This Community (or what's left of it) views the term "Fan Art". Actually, there were a lot of "is this copyright violation" questions, which some people did attempt to answer. Some people really will try to answer questions, even ones asked sarcastically. Actually the 'true' definition can only be made by the specific holder of any copyrighted material.... That's absolutely correct, but the point is, Renderosity can choose to host or not host anything they want according to their OWN definition, so until the admins cough up an answer, all that can be offered is general copyright/trademark information. There's no need to get pissed off when people offer that. bonni
"When a man gives his opinion, he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch." - Bette Davis
Byrdie! The first two that come to mind are: The desert world: Dune, Frank Herbert Ewoks: Poul Anderson's Hokas (See "Earthman's Burden" and "Hoka" - great books). But there are are a ton of others. Lucas' great acheivement was taking them all, changing them enough so HE didn't get into trouble on copyright, and making it all work together. Of course, it could be that he thought them all up on HIS OWN and I'm completly wrong! That can hold true for our work too.
Well I just checked pdxjims' link and according to them Frankenstein is fair game, however I am sure that Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley is not actually the one holding (or held) a copywrite to the physical image of what we all preceive Frankenstein to look like as seen on the 'big screen', I'm sure Universal Studios has some handle on that in some way? And that doesn't actually clear my above picture of a 'bride' of Frankenstein since it wasn't Mary who married him?? And that still dosen't explain why a woman in Vampirilla's suit is protected but a man in Dracula's suit is not?? elizabyte; Exactly!!! (but if I don't get POed then what's the point of it all?)
Yep, I reckon it's all in the eye of the beholder. Who may or may not be an expert and/or have a law degree. I haven't read Dune but I vaguely remember an article or two theorizing G.L. had been ::ahem:: inspired by it. Must go hunt down a copy and see for myself, desert planets have been around since the original Star Trek, maybe even longer. Ewoks, on the other hand, would seem to be an even clearer case of ::cough:: coincidental similarity. There's even a thread somewhere around here with pictures and danged if those two sets of furries don't look like long-lost kin.
Just adding in: Dracula is also out of copyright now, so that name and "look" is fair game. It would in any case be hard to trademark a "look" like Dracula's, which is based on historical outfits of the time. You could just say you followed the same historical model for clothes of the time period. (Likewise, you can write bad Tolkein ripoffs by claiming to draw from the same mythology Tolkein drew from. A fair chunk of fantasy novels do just that. :P ) An outfit like Vampirella's is clearly an invention of the author of the comic, and thus is more likely to come in under "intellectual property" law.
If papablue and the rest of you guys want the admins to respond to this issue, frame it in a question they can answer. What will they allow? AFAIK they will allow anything that doesn't violate the TOS, doesn't have any copyright or trademark issues and doesn't generate any complaints. For them to be more specific would take a few hundred pages of details. If the goal is to bend the rules with public domain subterfuges, you're just going to get them angry and less willing to cater to the fan-art faction.
Good idea. I think most of us would here agree. Now me, I'd just like to know what specific copyright/trademark issues would pose those kind of problems. That way we can avoid them so that (hopefully) nobody gets in trouble for doin' what we hadn't ought to.
To put it another way, I wanna keep my wheels on the pavement here but it's a bit hard when the road's all bumpy, the signs are either missing, obscured by brush or pointing in different directions, there's more rain than the windshield wipers can handle and if all those darn backseat drivers don't shut up, I'm like to run into a ditch.
No fun at all, that. :-(
Message edited on: 12/01/2004 22:15
Message edited on: 12/01/2004 22:16
War of the Worlds is public domain too. So is Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan, and the Wizard of Oz Yup, but remember: that means just the texts, not the portrayals of the texts as seen in the movies. That means you're free to make any kind of Martian tripod you like as long as it's not the way it was done in the 1950s-era film. Want a create an Alice? Go for it, but dont make it look like Disney's version. There's nothing to stop portrayals like this, but make them your own, not someone else's.
docandraider.com -- the collected cartoons of Doc and Raider
"SInce the estate of Bela Lugosi still holds rights to his likeness, if your dracula resemebled him, then it would be fan art." 1)-If Bela Lugosi did his representation of Dracula based on the original book from Brian Stocker, you can do a Dracula that look very similar to the Lugosi's Dracula, because both are based on the same book. 2)-If Bela Lugosi created his own representation of Dracula, then you cannot create a Dracula that is similar to Lugosi's Dracula. I have not read the book neither remember Bela Lugosi, but is very probable that the first case is the correct one.
Stupidity also evolves!
We are still waiting to hear from an admin on this, as stated by Shoshanna in post 4. As soon as we do, we will let you know.
"you are terrifying
and strange and beautiful
something not everyone knows how to love." - Warsan
Shire
Khai, War of the Worlds and his other works are all available at Project G. They state that everything they have is public domain according to U.S. law. You may be right though, since it may be covered under British law, or if they changed the copyright protection law after the work entered into public domain.
Once upon a time, Imitation was considered flattery. Anyway, ChuckEvans, no, the concept of a vanged, winged, blood drinking creature called a Vampyr/Vampire is not the IP of anyone. Any concept that is older than print is in the public domain. Take Hobbits for example. Tolkien's "Hobbits" may be his Intellectual Property, but even those were inspired by the much older concept of a Halfling or Halfman. The origins of which are so old and diverse, there is no way anyone could ever determine who created the idea. Most mythical creatures do not belong to anyone as such. Only specific representations or naming of certain ones. Creating a short human figure with curly brown hair and naming it "Frodo" would be an obvious infringement on the Trademark held by Tolkein's descendants, but calling the figure a "Halfling" would be perfectly acceptable. Calling it a "Hobbit" would be iffy. There was a text in a local resource library many many years ago, the title of which I truly wish I could recall. It was about fantasy creatures and the origin of their concept.
interesting since they are wrong. (about the public domain part) all Well's work is still under protection as stated.. so I must assume the family have allowed this.. there again.. how much does fighting a case in the US cost these days? interesting isn't it.. by UK law, Mickey Mouse is now public domain. but because we respect the Berne convention, it's not. you'd think that other signatories would be respect that feeling huh? not so Hollywood or US lawyers!
There are some variations of the copyrights laws among different countries that are signatory of the Berne convention, some laws give more protection in some points and some laws give less protection at other points. There are variations about the time for copyrights, the non comercial use, and others. With trademarks is worst and with patents is even worth, because many patents are not accepted or recognized. The law that prevails is the local law above any kind of external law, convention or agreement.
Stupidity also evolves!
From the H.G. Wells Society site: Europe
Within the United Kingdom and all other countries of the European Union, and also within Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Norway and Romania, the works of H.G. Wells remain in copyright until 31 December 2016. Within Brazil, the copyright lasts until 31 December 2006.
United States
Within the United States, any book first published before 31 December 1922 is in the public domain. Works published after that remain in copyright for 95 years from first publication.
And if I could on the green card, you'd have it.
Message edited on: 12/02/2004 02:16
Byrdie - Re: Lucas The author of dinotopia James Gurney, prior to the release of the series Dinotopia posted an accusation sighting that grorge lucas was a thief to the front page of Dinotopia.com - The origonal statement has been changed to a more toned down version probably for legal reasons - http://www.dinotopia.com/statement.html At the time Gurney was rightly cheezed off as his new show was set to come out and as the images were so similar he was afraid that he would be accused of copying Lucas!!- Gurney seems to have come around to the idea of being coppied now though! Check out the imagery for yourself there are several scenes - heres a cashed link if you are interested - http://www.google.ie/search?q=cache:5WriGbBbHQQJ:www.echostation.com/interview/gurney.htm+lucas+gurney&hl=en
"Don't do it with an axe, get a chainsaw"
While the idea of "learning" copyright law is not a bad one, artists should not forget that the law is simply a bunch of rules created by lawyers to enforce their indispensibility. I'l wager there is no artwork extant that could not be taken successfully to court by the right lawyer on the right day for an IP violation. The notion of IP has been agglomerated into a tasteless joke. Thirty years ago, Gary Gygax had to call "hobbits" "halfings", because Tolkien "invented" the word "hobbit." Tolkien himself is the authority on this, and a couple of you have suggested that there is evidence that this honest and world-class lexicologist was mistaken. So is "hobbit" his estate's intellectual property or not? Want to watch fur fly? Pay two lawyers to debate it. Offer them an extra 10%, and they'll do it in a vat of jello. Lawyers, like flies, will land and feed where the pickings are good and the defenses not. You can no more avoid them by learning the current "truth" about IP than you can avoid flies if you eat ice cream outside. A wise teacher offered the best alternative: Rather than venerate the "learned" Pharisees, whose wisdom is of their own makings, follow your heart and take your chances. And Will Blake said so too. M
"The notion of IP has been agglomerated into a tasteless joke. Thirty years ago, Gary Gygax had to call "hobbits" "halfings", because Tolkien "invented" the word "hobbit." Well, I suppose he was forced to change (later) because the original 3 (small) D&D manuals he (his) company produced referred to them as "hobbits".
Well, I suppose he was forced to change (later) because >> the original 3 (small) D&D manuals he (his) company >> produced referred to them as "hobbits". That was the scuttlebutt at the time; they became unprotectable "halflings" by the second or third edition, long before the fancy printings started. There was an estate complaint about the little books (which are nicely collectable, I remind myself, thinking of a box in the basement). They could not challenge "Orcs," because on Tolkien's authority he borrowed that term from old sagas, but the word "hobbit" itself was believed (by Tolkien, I think) to be an invention. Thus was born the hypocritical game/novel relationship that sustained interest in LoTR until Peter Jackson came along to create the ultimate homage, a real movie for those us who don't read. The ludicrous irony of the swarming lawyers was that D&D has little hairyfooted thieves with names like Biljo and Fratto who live in holes and smoke and go on adventures with IP-independent wizards, dwarves, and elves, meet IP-free Ents, and slay orcs, trolls, and dragons unarmored in IP, but they are NOT (Heaven and court forfend) called "hobbits." What a crock. And we go along with it, 'cause otherwise, they'll swarm us. M
However, the word hobbit appears, in print, before JRRT was born, with the meaning of some sort of goblin. So whether JRRT thought he invented it, he didn't. It doesn't take much legal arguing. Did the word appear in print before Tolkien used it? Yes it did, here it is. Thank you. Here's my fee. According to a friend of mine who knows about these things, TSR were aware of this, but just didn't want to pick a fight over the issue. Incidentally, as well as fan art, there is parody, which is protected. So do Vampirella with exaggerated characteristics, with a sword, in a temple, and you are OK.
- According to a friend of mine who knows about these things, TSR were aware of this, but just didn't want to pick a fight over the issue. - Which in a nutshell is how most copyright/trademark cases go. Copyright and Trademark laws while useful are often used to bully and threaten other artists, who will usually give up rather than face the massive expense of trying to fight it out, even when they can win.
yes i suppose anyone will claim they copyrigthed entire norse, dane, nordic, hungarian, east european, french, or whatever loe and legend and mythos ??? i mean, damn, korrigans, trolls, faeries, hobbits, leprechauns, et cetc etc, all those are creatures (or at least their name) that belong to very old mythos and lores after that, you can either portray some character bearing this name and with a look based on original mythos description, or design your character or a different view of the initial mythos one, still naming it the same.. now who will come and sue you ? i guess it is "first in first rules !" i mean as long as one darn lamer produce a book or a hollywood blockbuster with the name on it, the entire mythos or the name becomes his copyright :) because most people are too short minded and with too low memory (red fish syndroma) to even RECALL that, somewhere, sometime, there WAS something tat EXISTEd before the movie as if "as long as we dont make a movie of it, it did not exist", there were no "fill the name" before us ! come on all this mess really get on my nerves, especially because most company indeed tolerate or authorise fan art and dont see any problem with that, accordin to some guidelines (Tecmo for exemple dont care much about DOA heroin fan arts as long as you dont make them do dirty things... so as long as it is non x rated fan art, hey never bother you) so on one side some say: go, make fan arts we dont mind thanx for spreading our products, and on the other: som say "yes but dont host them on our place because we dont want to be sued" anyway no matter what you do, you always are inspired by what you saw and heard and read... so you will never produce a 100% original uncopyrigthed uninfringing thing you could dare to call your own !!! so in fact, just STOP trying to make things and to avoid the hurlstones !!!
yes i suppose anyone will claim they copyrigthed entire norse, dane, nordic, hungarian, east european, french, or whatever loe and legend and mythos ??? Highly unlikely, and excessively improbable. "...i guess it is "first in first rules !"" yes. "i mean as long as one darn lamer produce a book or a hollywood blockbuster with the name on it, the entire mythos or the name becomes his copyright..." incorrect and exaggeration. "...because most people are too short minded and with too low memory (red fish syndroma) to even RECALL that, somewhere, sometime, there WAS something tat EXISTEd before the movie" Sadly, true. But folks who deal in ip law are not like that. Well, mostly. lol "especially because most company indeed tolerate or authorise fan art and dont see any problem with that, accordin to some guidelines (Tecmo for exemple dont care much about DOA heroin fan arts as long as you dont make them do dirty things... so as long as it is non x rated fan art, hey never bother you) so on one side some say: go, make fan arts we dont mind thanx for spreading our products, and on the other: som say "yes but dont host them on our place because we dont want to be sued"" That's a very good grasp. What is applicable here, however, is, specifically, what will Renderosity tolerate, since, links only or no, they do bear some risk. So they are eliminating that risk. It is not something they are comfortable with any longer. "anyway no matter what you do, you always are inspired by what you saw and heard and read... so you will never produce a 100% original uncopyrigthed uninfringing thing you could dare to call your own !!!" wrong. And saying so is both exaggeration and confusing the issue. It's borne out of frustration, and, yes, I do understand that, but it is not right. I have created a splash prop. You can find it in my store here. I own the copyright on that splash prop. You can make one, too. (It's easy, really) I also made an island. And, as I offered elsewhere, as well, find the inspiration for it. I can tell you, point blank, that it was not a graphical image of any sort. And I can also tell you that it is 100% original. Don't stop. Just think ;)
thou and I, my friend, can, in the most flunkey world, make, each of us, one non-flunkey, one hero, if we like: that will be two heroes to begin with. (Carlyle)
Um, Ynsaen, I realize you know a great deal about the whole copyright/trademark thing. But I recall a case where someone tried to sue Lego over their Bionicle line because it infringed on Polynesian mythologies and cultural heritage. http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/06/01/newzealand.maori/ so yes, it is possible for someone to sue over the use of a character from mythology or any other aspect of cultural heritage. Perhaps not under US laws, but we all know that US law isn't the only one we have to worry about these days.
yes! I remember that case! It was a good one. I was torn, though -- my kids love the bionicles. And no, they are not the only laws to worry about. But they are the ones that apply here.
thou and I, my friend, can, in the most flunkey world, make, each of us, one non-flunkey, one hero, if we like: that will be two heroes to begin with. (Carlyle)
which is gonna get very tricky. as I stated above, everything to do with Well's is under copyright in the UK. technically, if someone was to create something covered by that it's illegal to buy and use it in the UK, since the copyright holders do not get what is due them by UK law. conversely, if I create something in the UK which is ok under UK law, but not US law, again thats a problem, since I would not be allowed to post it anywhere on the net that can be accessed by the US. I can see this in the future becoming more of a problem. what can we do? without a unified code, the berne convention is useless, since it can be overridden by local law defeating the protection it is supposed to provide the copyright holders it was designed to protect.
Privacy Notice
This site uses cookies to deliver the best experience. Our own cookies make user accounts and other features possible. Third-party cookies are used to display relevant ads and to analyze how Renderosity is used. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understood our Terms of Service, including our Cookie Policy and our Privacy Policy.
Attached Link: Project Gutenberg
If you want inspiration and still be sure that the idea is in the public domain, choose a title from Project Gutenberg. They're all in the public domain, and you're about as safe as you can get using them. Note that there are 8 different Tarzan books by E.R. Burroughs there, so make Tarzan to your heart's content.