So I just stumbled over the copyright problems of fan games and it made me think. Where does "own content" start? From which point can you really claim copyright, until which point could the original creators still justified ask you to put the content down?
Examples:
1. I traced Misty from Pokemon based on an image I found in the depth of the Internet. This took me several hours, so I definitely put effort in it. Is it wrong I'm not just offering the image, but also the vector grafic to be downloaded?
2. Let's say the template was really offical, is it any better if I resize her GIGANTIC head to a more proportional one?
3. In addition to that I also made a bunch of emotions for the character. Own content anyone?
4. Or what if I trace original content and just change the facial features so that the character doesn't look like he/she had a car accident?
5. Image I take my traced Misty, transform her into a ganguro girl (please kill me if I ever actually do that) and call her Dörthe. Is it my character now?
6. If I additionally change her hairstyle and give her other clothes, no one would recognize her as Misty anymore. Own content now?
7. What if I trace this other hairstyle and clothes off from other original characters?
8. What if I drew Misty which would resemble the original but quite far from looking like being from the series? No copyright on that?
9. Let's switch the previous case: Image I can draw especially well in a style of e.g. Naruto and make my own character (not actually mine). Copyright infrigement? What if I remove the Naruto Logo and substitute the forehead-protector symbol there by one I made up? I know have a character about almost anyone who watches the series would say: "Looks like I missed an episode."
10. Image I do this with My Little Pony, where nobody could anyhow deny the association with the show because we speak about ponies!
This was all about art (in the meaning of pictures), because that one is the easiest to see and the easiest reason to shout "Copyright infrigement!". What about story?
11. Image I sell a book about a time traveler called the Healer who helps people everywhere and everywhen. He meets this girl called Tulip and they travel together in a yellow police telephone box called the D.E.R.P.I.S.. He also has two hearts, can regenerate his complete body 12 times even if he got a deadly injury, but this also changes his personality and general appearence. Oh, and he is the last of his race, the Clock Lords (the "l" is important). Until book 5 or something. This book would probably be as successful as 50 shades of grey and then the BBC would knock at my door.
12. Let's say he has three hearts instead and travels in a
13. For my own imaginative world I first copypasted almost everything I saw (for real this time), from weapons to characters, but they envolved a life of their own. I copied an explanation for magic because it simply made sense and added my tune through additional rules. From Digimon, W.I.T.C.H. and maybe some other source material and my imagination I made up a complete new source of fighting style which I later learned had some similiarity with the Green Lantern Ring from DC I didn't really heard of at the time. I was inspired by Doctor Who and added Time Travelers as a minor occurence while building up an own system of reality based on Platon's World as Roger Penrose described it in "Road to Reality". I say copyright matter on this is all under my good will, who says otherwise?
After art and storytelling I won't have a look on music (because I'm too weak in this field) but on game mechanics, or generally games:
14. At some point, there was the first visual novel on an electric medium. Through the many VNs that came after had different imagery, story and sound, don't they have the same game mechanics? Is this ripping off?
15. Arguably let VN be a genre, e.g. as round-based strategy. For the latter a typical example is Sid Meier's Civilisation II, a commercial game. The problem with commercial games is that from one point on there will be no updates anymore and since the source code is not free to all, nobody can improve the game anymore / make it more challenging. Then there are people who want to change this and those people created FreeCiv to counter exactly these problems. They use different art and so on alright, but one of their goals is to mimick the original game mechanics as good as possible. Basically, that is a rip-off, am I'm right?
Last but not least there is the video department. Illegal copies are often sued very hard, but there is more to this than simply copying.
16. People can make awesome videos from given clips or alter them somehow entertaining. Is that bad or copyright infrigement?
17. What about resynchronisations, often in form of abridged series? Is that an insult to the original idea or supporting the franchise on the contrary?
So I gave you a bunch of examples. What is own content? What is copyright infrigement?
You don't have to reply to all examples or any at all, just pick those you like :-)
EDIT:
What is this about again? While I have some thoughts about my own projects which also gives me some prime examples, this isn't about me having problems with the law(s) but I'm honestly curious about your opinions of the thread question/title 'Where does "own content" start?' and I'm trying hard to give you new ideas or questioning your arguments to have a nice discussion here :)
EDIT: The space for headings is still to short :(