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.

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)

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 wish I'd said that.. The Staircase Wit

anahl nathrak uth vas betude doth yel dyenvey..;)

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 :)

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)

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

---

Tools :  3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

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.

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)

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".

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)

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.

---

Tools :  3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

"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.

TG

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.

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)

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.

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)

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

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)

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.

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)

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

VanishingPoint... Advanced 3D Modeling Solutions

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/

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)

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.

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)

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.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

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.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

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.

TG

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

"When a man gives his opinion, he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch." - Bette Davis

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.

Do the impossible, see the invisible

ROW ROW FIGHT THE POWER

Touch the untouchable, break the unbreakable

ROW ROW FIGHT THE POWER

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. :-)

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.

I tawt I taw a Tarzan dere. I did! I did tee a Tarzan! So how come E.R.B. Inc. didn't go after Gutenberg?

.

Nancy Deer With Horns
Deer With Horns Native American Indian Site

I think everyone here needs a FULL colonic flush :) Talk about over exagerating ~eye roll~. Stop being so anal & nitpickiking.

Is that why they took Sheena of the Jungle off the air, because it was a parody of the Tarzan theme? I sure do miss Sheena running nekkid in the jungle, Tarzan never that that much ball :*(

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...

So I can do a pic of Santa riding on a razor through the snow so long as the razor is not a Norelco? (butt I think any other brand may just chaff his...um, butt??)

"Lucas stole so many ideas from OTHER authors..." Now that's tickled my curiousity all over. Care to satisfy it? If it's too ::cough:: sensitive for underaged or delicate ears, PM me willya? I can't wait to hear the juicy details. ;-)

I see a lot of replies, but nothing from the mods and admin clarifying the issue. Could someone from Renderosity please respond?

I think the mods and admins are just rolling on their *ss in the isle watching us try to sort this all out on our own....

They're probably drove half batty trying to figure it out themselves. Not that I blame them -- sheesh, no wonder there's no such animal as an unemployed lawyer! Or if there is, I sure as heck ain't seen one. Pink ponies, on the other hand ... ;-)

Message edited on: 12/01/2004 20:24

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.

but if I don't get POed then what's the point of it all? LOL!!!!! Okay, good point. ;-) bonni

"When a man gives his opinion, he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch." - Bette Davis

... just de-eboting this thread

Use the Source, Luke. Damnit, use the Source! {Lucasfilm lawyers, please take note that I am not referring to any particular TM character or concept. Now kindly move along, these aren't the droids you're looking for. ;-)}

Message edited on: 12/01/2004 21:20

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

Oops, just noticed I muddled my grammar there a bit. A sure sign it's way past my bedtime. ::yawn: G'night all!

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

"War of the Worlds is public domain too." actually.. it's not. you see, Wells died in 1946. so, time of death plus 70 years equals 2016 when his works comeout of copyright protection. (it's why the recent Time Machine movie needed the permission of the Well's Family)

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!

Khai, I'd be more than happy to trade Mickey for Wells. In a New York minute.

throw in a green card for me and you've got a deal ;)

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.

Not always, darken. For some examples, go here: http://www.illegal-art.org/index.html And no, they aren't w***z kitties, they're a site dedicated to artists rights, free expression and the public domain.

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.

it's not access but where the physical servers are located- post away

My lawyer shall contact you shortly..;-)

incorrect and exaggeration Ah, a fine Renderosity tradition is being continued, I see.... ;-) bonni

"When a man gives his opinion, he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch." - Bette Davis

What is important is what is correct to do and not what the law says. If you are based only on the the law, you can always find a lawyer and a bunch of laws that will turn what is illegal into a legal one.

Stupidity also evolves!

Attached Link: http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1236864.htm

igohigh - in relation to hobbits they exist separate from tolkein so are not copyrighted material. see link

"Don't do it with an axe, get a chainsaw"

They Really Do Exist!! faints and crushes the red M&M

This raises a whole ton of interesting questions. One of which is: can Tolkien's heirs/Newline Cinema or whomever owns the copyright/trademark on LOTR now demand royalties or other compensation from the scientists for appropriating the term "hobbit" to describe these beings? I won't even bother to ask if they can sue over it -- heck, anybody can and will sue at the drop of a hat these days -- but would this be considered infringement? What happens when somebody else writes fiction about them, will the "Hobbits Are For Real" argument be any defense? True, the real ones don't look like the movie version, but all living creatures evolve. I'm quite certain any modern hobbits wouldn't look like ancient ones any more than we look like our primitive ancestors, a fact that is bound to occur to others. Just goes to show you, when you think you've figured it all out, along comes a stray little fact that turns the whole thing upside down. Funny, what?

Nah. Dagmath's link is irrelevant. It has no bearing on the properties concerned, and the statement is misleading as copyright is not what is concerned in relationship, but rather trademark -- which is utterly untouched. jumpin at bogeymen...

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)

Okay then, so it doesn't come under copyright. Would it be violating/infringing on anybody's trademark? Just curious.

Message edited on: 12/05/2004 15:36

not unless you really wanna stretch the limits of imagination and give those old bones all the defining characteristics of a tolkien character and say that's what it is. Whih means we're safe. Laywers aren't supposed to be very imaginative...

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)

"Laywers aren't supposed to be very imaginative..." LOL! Except the old-fashioned TV kind, like Perry Mason & Men Matlock! But they specialized in criminal law -- homicide, not sorting out hobbits.