Where does "own content" start? And Copyright Issues?

A place to discuss things that aren't specific to any one creator or game.
Forum rules
Ren'Py specific questions should be posted in the Ren'Py Questions and Annoucements forum, not here.
Message
Author
User avatar
Ayutac
Regular
Posts: 150
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 2:23 pm
Projects: Pokémon Dating Sim
Organization: A Breeze Of Science
Deviantart: Ubro
Location: Mayence, Germany
Contact:

Where does "own content" start? And Copyright Issues?

#1 Post by Ayutac »

Since the end of april there wasn't a discussion like this so I think it is okay to open a new thread.

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 Pokeball miniature capulse simply called "Sexy". He can only be saved from certain death 7 times because 7 is a magical number and he does that by interchanging himself with another version of him from an alternative universe, with adding his memories and this special ability to the new guy. That is certainly Doctor Who inspired, but could I as the author claim complete copyright to the Healer?
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? What is good and what is bad? What could you (officially) take money for and what not? What's your opinion on the matter?
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 :(
Last edited by Ayutac on Wed Aug 20, 2014 10:56 am, edited 2 times in total.
Up next: An original, open source, text-based Dating Sim. Stay tuned ;)

User avatar
Hazel-Bun
Eileen-Class Veteran
Posts: 1010
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 6:03 pm
Completed: Sunrise: A Dieselpunk Fantasy & Ultramarine: A Seapunk Adventure
Projects: Thrall: A Dark Otome Visual Novel
Organization: AURELIA LEO, LLC
Tumblr: authorzknight
itch: authorzknight
Contact:

Re: [Discussion] Where does "own content" start?

#2 Post by Hazel-Bun »

I'd say every example you posted are pretty clearly copyright infringement. Most people don't prosecute fan work because a). They tend not to sell it & know it's more just spreading the love they felt for their work in question b). It's too much work & money that won't recuperate the loses the creator endured. Borrowing concepts and styles aren't the same as tracing over an image, copying a track, or and modeling a story to a T and then selling it for profit.

Why not just use open source content? I'm not sure what discussion your trying to start... Are you saying you'd like the laws revised? Or, are you just arguing for arguments sake maybe?

EDIT:

Oh! :D I think I'm getting what you mean a little more now. Legally you'll never own any of these examples, aside from OC's of course, but I guess you're arguing that because you put so much effort into it it should be treated as it's own entity/your content? I think the biggest thing you have to remember is that the creators devoted just as much time and effort, maybe even more so, into their work and have every right to protect it. I think it's hard to separate emotion from things like these but always remember that it's not "Big Bad Corp." but real people who value their creations and should be respected.
Black bookstore owner. Diverse fiction reviewer. Bestselling romance author. Award-winning fiction editor. Quite possibly a werewolf, ask me during the next full moon.

User avatar
Lesleigh63
Miko-Class Veteran
Posts: 559
Joined: Fri May 31, 2013 7:59 pm
Completed: House of Dolls; Lads in Distress - Nano'16; Delusion Gallery Nano'18
Projects: BL VN
Deviantart: Lesleigh63
Contact:

Re: [Discussion] Where does "own content" start?

#3 Post by Lesleigh63 »

My understanding for fanart is to have the character in a different pose and not to simply trace the official original art. Declare it as fanart or a fan project and do not sell it.

For original art (that you used a reference for that you do not own - photo or artwork), your art should not be recognisable as the reference material - it needs to be significantly different to the reference material.
Image

User avatar
Sharm
Miko-Class Veteran
Posts: 558
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 4:39 pm
Projects: Twin Crowns, Weather Wizard
Contact:

Re: [Discussion] Where does "own content" start?

#4 Post by Sharm »

Okay, so, in the USA (no idea what it is elsewhere) if you can take the original piece, put it next to your work and can have a judge say "Oh yeah, that looks like it was made from that." then you're in legal trouble. If you can put them side by side and you can't tell at all that they used to be the same image, then you're probably okay. Yes, it's a very grey area depending entirely on how observant the judge is, which is why you should steer clear of it.

As for the "I did the work of the tracing and it was hard" line of reasoning. That is very true, which is why the ones who hold the copyright for the original artwork can't just take what you made and sell it as if it was their own either. They own their portion of the artwork; the character, the design, the original lines, ect. You own only your portion of it, the remix elements. Think of it this way. One person writes some music, someone else does a performance of that music. The second party owns the performance but they do not, in any way shape or form, own the composition. If they want to do anything with that performance they must license the composition and can't legally perform the piece if the don't have that license.
Works in Progress: Twin Crowns | Weather Wizard

User avatar
Ayutac
Regular
Posts: 150
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 2:23 pm
Projects: Pokémon Dating Sim
Organization: A Breeze Of Science
Deviantart: Ubro
Location: Mayence, Germany
Contact:

Re: [Discussion] Where does "own content" start?

#5 Post by Ayutac »

Hazel-Bun wrote:Are you saying you'd like the laws revised?
That's without question :-P
Hazel-Bun wrote:Legally you'll never own any of these examples, aside from OC's of course
Okay, now why are you making this distinction exactly? If I write a fanfiction about Maria, Thomas and Peter (OCs) that are clearly set within an existing fantasy world (e.g. Star Wars) I couldn't sell that. But if someone else uses my characters as I descriped them, appearance as well as characterization, and put them into a complete different and new fantasy world, they could sell that? Because their source was somewhat illegal?
Hazel-Bun wrote:I think it's hard to separate emotion from things like these but always remember that it's not "Big Bad Corp." but real people who value their creations and should be respected.
You see that a little bit too light-hearted. I won't start about Music Industry (especially here in Germany) e.g. how I can't watch some videos on YouTube from Serj Tankians OFFICAL channel because GEMA blocked it – okay, I started. But I have a better example anyway: Lauren Faust reimaginated My Little Pony, which got – to the surprise of everyone – a huge fanbase across the globe, the mean fan being far much older than intended, I'm sure you've heard of that already. Faust was technically doing a job for Hasbro (the "Big Bad Corp.") and surely gave the creation rights to them who then offically called it My Little Pony, a merchandise name they own. But nevertheless it was Faust's idea. The fanbase did a lot of fan content even apprechiated by Faust and a lot of other people involved in the show (e.g. voice actors like Tara Strong or writers like Megan McCarthy). One thing was the development of a VS game (something like Street Fighter) of the characters, but with no blood at all and attacks that really suited the characters. It should be distributed for free. However, Hasbro took it down (while they are okay with kittens being killed in the offical comics...). Lauren Faust was removed from the show at the end of the second season and what does she do now (besides from making other shows)? Designing new and original characters for the developers of the forementioned game!

Lesleigh63 wrote:My understanding for fanart is to have the character in a different pose and not to simply trace the official original art.
Okay, but what if I spent 7 hours tracing and you spent 3 hours drawing? Please look again at examples 2-5. Doesn't any of that count as fanart for you in any way?
Lesleigh63 wrote:For original art (that you used a reference for that you do not own - photo or artwork), your art should not be recognisable as the reference material - it needs to be significantly different to the reference material.
What counts as "significantly different" for you? If I copy the art style perfectly but only draw OCs (ex. 9 and 10), is this enough?
Sharm wrote:Okay, so, in the USA (no idea what it is elsewhere) if you can take the original piece, put it next to your work and can have a judge say "Oh yeah, that looks like it was made from that." then you're in legal trouble. If you can put them side by side and you can't tell at all that they used to be the same image, then you're probably okay. Yes, it's a very grey area depending entirely on how observant the judge is, which is why you should steer clear of it.
This is a cool, easy explanation :D Raises the question of art style again, however. Also it could happen some things just look very, very similiar for no reason, but I think this happens so rarely it is basically ignored...
Sharm wrote:As for the "I did the work of the tracing and it was hard" line of reasoning. That is very true, which is why the ones who hold the copyright for the original artwork can't just take what you made and sell it as if it was their own either. They own their portion of the artwork; the character, the design, the original lines, ect. You own only your portion of it, the remix elements. Think of it this way. One person writes some music, someone else does a performance of that music. The second party owns the performance but they do not, in any way shape or form, own the composition. If they want to do anything with that performance they must license the composition and can't legally perform the piece if the don't have that license.
I think very much like this. I think the main problem with this is that the act of work itself is not really protected by any law until now. That wouldn't be the best in some cases anyway: Round edges copyright-protected, Apple? Really?

Another thought: If I would happen to create a Pokemon Dating Sim (haha), technically Nintendo could ask me to put it down on some legal basis, as the source material is clear and the game is intended this way. But what if I say it's a parody, because the Romance Element is almost forcefully deleted from everything Ash touches in the series and it makes fun of several things in the show? I can really say it can be as paroding as any Pokemon Youtube video. So, parody is freedom of speech (at least in both USA and Germany) so it's okay now?

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 :)
Up next: An original, open source, text-based Dating Sim. Stay tuned ;)

User avatar
Googaboga
Eileen-Class Veteran
Posts: 1395
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 1:37 pm
Completed: https://gbpatch.itch.io/
Projects: Floret Bond, XOXO Blood Droplets, Our Life
Organization: GB Patch Games
Tumblr: gb-patch
itch: gbpatch
Contact:

Re: [Discussion] Where does "own content" start?

#6 Post by Googaboga »

Ayutac wrote: Another thought: If I would happen to create a Pokemon Dating Sim (haha), technically Nintendo could ask me to put it down on some legal basis, as the source material is clear and the game is intended this way. But what if I say it's a parody, because the Romance Element is almost forcefully deleted from everything Ash touches in the series and it makes fun of several things in the show? I can really say it can be as paroding as any Pokemon Youtube video. So, parody is freedom of speech (at least in both USA and Germany) so it's okay now?
If all that changes is labeling it as parody, then you wouldn't really be any safer than you were before. Parodying something doesn't mean you can use the actual designs/materials to make your parody, you'd still need permission if you were going to do that. That's why most parodies don't use copyrighted material straight up. They almost always do everything from scratch and change the names/designs so that it's not exactly the same but still obvious what they are spoofing.

If you do make all your own art/music/etc from scratch, alter all the copyrighted designs/names, and send it out as a parody, then yeah you should be okay.

[This is just from a U.S. standpoint. I'm not sure how it works in other parts of the world]
In-Progress:
Floret Bond, XOXO Blood Droplets, Our Life
Released:
A Foretold Affair, My Magical Divorce Bureau, XOXO Droplets, Lake of Voices

User avatar
Holland
Regular
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2014 4:10 pm
Projects: Lycoris: Their Journies [WIP], With or Without You [NaNo19]
Location: NJ, USA
Contact:

Re: [Discussion] Where does "own content" start?

#7 Post by Holland »

Ayutac wrote:
Hazel-Bun wrote:Legally you'll never own any of these examples, aside from OC's of course
Okay, now why are you making this distinction exactly? If I write a fanfiction about Maria, Thomas and Peter (OCs) that are clearly set within an existing fantasy world (e.g. Star Wars) I couldn't sell that. But if someone else uses my characters as I described them, appearance as well as characterization, and put them into a complete different and new fantasy world, they could sell that? Because their source was somewhat illegal?
This distinction is because "original character" means you made the original designs of it. Even if you put that character in the existence of another story, you still designed what that character looks and acts like. Putting them into a fictional world based off another has a lot of "ifs". If this fictional world also has the characters from the original in it, then it's copyright infringement. If this fictional world specifically refers to places in the original by name, then it might be copyright infringement. If this fictional world contains many similar concepts and places by very similar names with your OCs following a similar story to the original, then it'll probably be considered plagiarism (which is much worse here in the US).

Now, if you took those same OCs and used them in a brand new world of your own, or put them in the real world, then they're completely legal no matter where you got the original idea for them. Characters are like stories in themselves.
Ayutac wrote:
Hazel-Bun wrote:I think it's hard to separate emotion from things like these but always remember that it's not "Big Bad Corp." but real people who value their creations and should be respected.
You see that a little bit too light-hearted. -rant-
Even if Faust and the other cast of the show liked the fanbase and wanted to participate in the creation of such games, that doesn't mean it's their right to decide what is and isn't copyright infringement, and it doesn't make them immune to it. This isn't limited to cartoons. If an actor in a movie turns around and writes their own public script using the characters from a movie they were in, that's still illegal if they don't have explicit permission to do so, and distributing it is definitely due course for being removed from the cast.
Ayutac wrote:
Lesleigh63 wrote:My understanding for fanart is to have the character in a different pose and not to simply trace the official original art.
Okay, but what if I spent 7 hours tracing and you spent 3 hours drawing? Please look again at examples 2-5. Doesn't any of that count as fanart for you in any way?
Being a slow artist doesn't magically give you some special right to have legal authority over a copyright. You're still drawing someone else's characters and distributing them without permission.
Ayutac wrote:
Lesleigh63 wrote:For original art (that you used a reference for that you do not own - photo or artwork), your art should not be recognisable as the reference material - it needs to be significantly different to the reference material.
What counts as "significantly different" for you? If I copy the art style perfectly but only draw OCs (ex. 9 and 10), is this enough?
Yes, if it's your original characters, the art style doesn't matter. This is why Mattel can release entire animated series that use the style from Bratz' games.
Ayutac wrote:Another thought: If I would happen to create a Pokemon Dating Sim (haha), technically Nintendo could ask me to put it down on some legal basis, as the source material is clear and the game is intended this way. But what if I say it's a parody, because the Romance Element is almost forcefully deleted from everything Ash touches in the series and it makes fun of several things in the show? I can really say it can be as paroding as any Pokemon Youtube video. So, parody is freedom of speech (at least in both USA and Germany) so it's okay now?
If it's specifically a parody, it is legal. This is one of the biggest loopholes in the American copyright system. This is why television shows like Robot Chicken can exist, which thrives off parodying real people and characters from other shows. There's a lot of fine tuning that goes with this, however, as getting a parody to stand up in court can be difficult and is often not worth it. I can't imagine that dating sim holding up in court if it just bites at the original here or there. Now, PETA's Pokemon parody? Absolutely. That's a very distinct parody full of biting sarcasm that is obviously making fun of the original in every aspect.

This was brought up earlier in the thread but still has a point: Most copyright infringement is not prosecuted, especially if it's infringing on Eastern works. I've yet to hear of anyone getting sued for making Pokeporn or selling fan art from the big three. Outside of the music industry, you'll probably be fine if you're making a fan piece or parody so long as you're not making a bunch of money from it. That doesn't change whether or not it's illegal - just whether or not someone as minor as you is worth prosecuting.

User avatar
Ayutac
Regular
Posts: 150
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 2:23 pm
Projects: Pokémon Dating Sim
Organization: A Breeze Of Science
Deviantart: Ubro
Location: Mayence, Germany
Contact:

Re: [Discussion] Where does "own content" start?

#8 Post by Ayutac »

BarabiSama wrote:If this fictional world contains many similar concepts and places by very similar names with your OCs following a similar story to the original, then it'll probably be considered plagiarism (which is much worse here in the US).
Oh really? I mean, socially it is probably worse *ahem*50Shades*ahem*, but how are plagiarisms handled legally? In Germany there is no special handling, out of an academic environment of course.
BarabiSama wrote:
Ayutac wrote: You see that a little bit too light-hearted. -rant-
I love how you just quote me with "rant" :D
BarabiSama wrote:it's [not] their right to decide what is and isn't copyright infringement
That wasn't my point. I was arguing that copyrights does not always protect the creators who put their hearts into things but sometimes cooperations that use the creations in a way the creators don't approve, just to make more money (oh god, equestria girls...).
BarabiSama wrote:
Ayutac wrote:
Lesleigh63 wrote:My understanding for fanart is to have the character in a different pose and not to simply trace the official original art.
Okay, but what if I spent 7 hours tracing and you spent 3 hours drawing? Please look again at examples 2-5. Doesn't any of that count as fanart for you in any way?
Being a slow artist doesn't magically give you some special right to have legal authority over a copyright. You're still drawing someone else's characters and distributing them without permission.
Granted, but my point here was just about what fanart is.
BarabiSama wrote:however, as getting a parody to stand up in court can be difficult and is often not worth it. I can't imagine that dating sim holding up in court if it just bites at the original here or there.
It is interesting how such cases are handled anyway. I think I would have to go to a German court, but I would just chease the distribution, implying I get a nice letter in before (like Hasbro did with the VS game).
BarabiSama wrote:This was brought up earlier in the thread but still has a point: Most copyright infringement is not prosecuted, especially if it's infringing on Eastern works. [...] so long as you're not making a bunch of money from it. That doesn't change whether or not it's illegal - just whether or not someone as minor as you is worth prosecuting.
This is true. And it bugs me. It says "You did a criminal offence and we are just overlooking it." I think generally getting criminalized for making fan content is a serious offence to the creativity of the human mind.

From the last statement you can guess my opinion on the overall question. In addition to what I seconded earlier, own content starts when you create something. It may be bad (really, really bad) but is still your content, at least in the extend what you did. The tracing of a character is own content even though the character is not. Remixes of anything are own content based on source material, which should always be referred in some way.
In the spirit of this creativity, of course if you publish your own content, the possibility that others use and change it (and that maybe even really BAD) is there and should be accepted.
While my game goes in this direction of course, I also write stories. The stories itself have standard copyright which covers citations but not "Hey this story is real good I should put it on my website too", but adaptions are possible. My wiki runs under a CC-Licence (even if I didn't put it there as I just noticed, though it's in the old one) , so I'm basically encouraging fanfiction of my work (which will probably never exist as nobody reads me) knowing that, if any ever emerges, there will be horrible, HORRIBLE ones that defy my ideas in any way possible and that should delete themselves out of existence (or maybe they already did?), but that's just part of the creativity process too.
Up next: An original, open source, text-based Dating Sim. Stay tuned ;)

User avatar
Holland
Regular
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2014 4:10 pm
Projects: Lycoris: Their Journies [WIP], With or Without You [NaNo19]
Location: NJ, USA
Contact:

Re: [Discussion] Where does "own content" start?

#9 Post by Holland »

Ayutac wrote:but how are plagiarisms handled legally? In Germany there is no special handling, out of an academic environment of course.
In the US, plagiarism is considered a misdemeanor when outside of an educational institution and can lead to:
1) Up to $50,000 in fines (and no less than $100)
2) A lawsuit by the affected party, and
3) Prison time up to 1 year.

In some states where it's considered a felony to plagiarize commercially, you might face:
1) A fine worth up to 100x the amount of money you received through the plagiarized work, and
2) Up to 10 years in prison.
Ayutac wrote:I love how you just quote me with "rant" :D
The post was long enough already xD
Ayutac wrote:That wasn't my point. I was arguing that copyrights does not always protect the creators who put their hearts into things but sometimes cooperations that use the creations in a way the creators don't approve, just to make more money (oh god, equestria girls...).
Yeah, but they're the ones who chose to hand over the copyright / work under it. Artists who retain the copyright of their own works don't face this issue.
Ayutac wrote:This is true. And it bugs me. It says "You did a criminal offence and we are just overlooking it."
There's actually a phrase that defines this. I can't remember what it is x_x It happens all the time, though. The world just can't put that much of their time into having their law enforcement chase after every little fan artist.
Ayutac wrote:I think generally getting criminalized for making fan content is a serious offence to the creativity of the human mind.
You can make the fan content all you want - just not openly distribute it.
Ayutac wrote:Remixes of anything are own content based on source material, which should always be referred in some way.
There are copyrights specifically against remixes as well.
Ayutac wrote:In the spirit of this creativity, of course if you publish your own content, the possibility that others use and change it (and that maybe even really BAD) is there and should be accepted.
It's not about the bad fan adaptions - just about protecting your work. Let's take this out of digital media. I made a painting, a really beautiful painting, and I sold it at my wonderful studio. A few days later, I find that same painting up in someone else's studio with a slash of paint across it in a new color. Maybe it's uglier. Maybe it's prettier. That doesn't change the fact that someone took my painting and are calling it theirs because they think they put in so much effort making those few slashes that it might as well belong to them. That "well I put in a few hours of work, so it should be mine!" mentality is where the issues get personal and copyrights become important.

User avatar
Mad Harlequin
Eileen-Class Veteran
Posts: 1068
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:55 am
Projects: Emma: A Lady's Maid (editor)
IRC Nick: MadHarlequin
Location: Gotham City
Contact:

Re: [Discussion] Where does "own content" start?

#10 Post by Mad Harlequin »

BarabiSama wrote:It's not about the bad fan adaptions - just about protecting your work. Let's take this out of digital media. I made a painting, a really beautiful painting, and I sold it at my wonderful studio. A few days later, I find that same painting up in someone else's studio with a slash of paint across it in a new color. Maybe it's uglier. Maybe it's prettier. That doesn't change the fact that someone took my painting and are calling it theirs because they think they put in so much effort making those few slashes that it might as well belong to them. That "well I put in a few hours of work, so it should be mine!" mentality is where the issues get personal and copyrights become important.
I support this paragraph a thousand times over.
I'm an aspiring writer and voice talent with a passion for literature and an unhealthy attachment to video games. I am also a seasoned typo-sniper. Inquiries are encouraged. Friendly chats are welcome.
"Always do what is right. It will gratify half of mankind and astound the other."
— Mark Twain

User avatar
Rossfellow
Veteran
Posts: 283
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2014 9:35 pm
Projects: Sedatophobia
Organization: Team 3Edgy
Deviantart: l-rossfellow
Contact:

Re: [Discussion] Where does "own content" start?

#11 Post by Rossfellow »

Mad Harlequin wrote:
BarabiSama wrote:It's not about the bad fan adaptions - just about protecting your work. Let's take this out of digital media. I made a painting, a really beautiful painting, and I sold it at my wonderful studio. A few days later, I find that same painting up in someone else's studio with a slash of paint across it in a new color. Maybe it's uglier. Maybe it's prettier. That doesn't change the fact that someone took my painting and are calling it theirs because they think they put in so much effort making those few slashes that it might as well belong to them. That "well I put in a few hours of work, so it should be mine!" mentality is where the issues get personal and copyrights become important.
I support this paragraph a thousand times over.
Seconded. This is pretty much the answer to the whole thread.
ImageImage
Sedatophobia (latin SedatoPhobia)
___(n) 1: The averse reaction to stillness, silence and/or state of helplessness.
______2: (Psychology) A state of distress where the victim's sense of reality can no longer keep up with his or her imagination.
______Related: Madness, Paranoia, Despair

User avatar
Ayutac
Regular
Posts: 150
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 2:23 pm
Projects: Pokémon Dating Sim
Organization: A Breeze Of Science
Deviantart: Ubro
Location: Mayence, Germany
Contact:

Re: [Discussion] Where does "own content" start?

#12 Post by Ayutac »

BarabiSama wrote:[Consequences of plagarism]
Ten years is hard. In Germany Top Time is 3 years, if commercially done 5 years. It would be interesting to know the time for other crimes in those states. E.g. in Germany sexual abuse of children is up to 10 years. So I'm having a hard time imagining a case of plagarism as bad as sexual child abuse. Of course if you somehow took millions away from a company you can't image the individual consequences either. But still, that is hard to take for me. It lets you think about the value of a human life.
BarabiSama wrote:It's not about the bad fan adaptions - just about protecting your work.
And if it would be implemented as this, I would have no problem whatsoever. Sadly it isn't.
Besides from that, your example was even good enough to make the solution to my personal problem clear, so thanks for that!
BarabiSama wrote:
Ayutac wrote:This is true. And it bugs me. It says "You did a criminal offence and we are just overlooking it."
There's actually a phrase that defines this. I can't remember what it is x_x
In Germany that is "Kavaliersdelikt" which sounds a lot more harmless than my phrasing. Leo.org translates this with "trivial offence" or "peccadillo", the latter was new to me.
BarabiSama wrote:It happens all the time, though. The world just can't put that much of their time into having their law enforcement chase after every little fan artist.
I think why this bugs me so much can be summoned up with one word that I miss on your second sentence: Yet.
Would they do it if they could? Two years ago I would have said "I don't know", but with the NSA affair I'm now sure they would.
Rossfellow wrote:This is pretty much the answer to the whole thread.
But I don't want to bury this thread just yet, I'm learning and having fun :D
Up next: An original, open source, text-based Dating Sim. Stay tuned ;)

User avatar
Holland
Regular
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2014 4:10 pm
Projects: Lycoris: Their Journies [WIP], With or Without You [NaNo19]
Location: NJ, USA
Contact:

Re: [Discussion] Where does "own content" start?

#13 Post by Holland »

Ayutac wrote:Ten years is hard. In Germany Top Time is 3 years, if commercially done 5 years. It would be interesting to know the time for other crimes in those states. E.g. in Germany sexual abuse of children is up to 10 years. So I'm having a hard time imagining a case of plagarism as bad as sexual child abuse. Of course if you somehow took millions away from a company you can't image the individual consequences either. But still, that is hard to take for me. It lets you think about the value of a human life.
Child abuse laws are super varied all throughout the states here, though it's almost always considered a felony, and if it's sexual, you're put on the sexual offenders list, which (in most states) severely restricts everything from where you can live to the places you can go. From what I've found from a quick search, jail time ranges anywhere from a few years to life in prison depending on how severe the abuse was and what state the abuse took place in. The US imprisons people a lot longer in general than Germany, so I don't think it's a reasonable comparison to make.
Ayutac wrote:Besides from that, your example was even good enough to make the solution to my personal problem clear, so thanks for that!
I'm glad to hear it helped :3
Ayutac wrote:In Germany that is "Kavaliersdelikt" which sounds a lot more harmless than my phrasing. Leo.org translates this with "trivial offence" or "peccadillo", the latter was new to me.
Interesting! The phrase I'm thinking of is in English and is something I learned in history class at some point, but I just can't remember what it is x_x The basic concept was that, by not properly enforcing a law for a period of time, law enforcement shouldn't be permitted to pick and choose cases later on to prosecute when it becomes convenient. It followed the belief that either everyone committing the crime should be prosecuted or nobody should be. We unfortunately never followed through with it then nor now. I think that's a bit of an issue with copyrighting laws since it's entirely up to the copyright holder; there's no clear standard in the creative industries of what will and won't be taken down since it depends on exactly whose work you're infringing on.
Ayutac wrote:Would they do it if they could? Two years ago I would have said "I don't know", but with the NSA affair I'm now sure they would.
I think they'd try if it really seemed viable, but I doubt it would last long, or at least not here. We have too much other nonsense going on for a whole new force dedicated to clearing out things on the internet that infringe on copyrights.

User avatar
Lesleigh63
Miko-Class Veteran
Posts: 559
Joined: Fri May 31, 2013 7:59 pm
Completed: House of Dolls; Lads in Distress - Nano'16; Delusion Gallery Nano'18
Projects: BL VN
Deviantart: Lesleigh63
Contact:

Re: [Discussion] Where does "own content" start?

#14 Post by Lesleigh63 »

Lesleigh63 wrote:My understanding for fanart is to have the character in a different pose and not to simply trace the official original art.
Okay, but what if I spent 7 hours tracing and you spent 3 hours drawing? Please look again at examples 2-5. Doesn't any of that count as fanart for you in any way?
Lesleigh63 wrote:For original art (that you used a reference for that you do not own - photo or artwork), your art should not be recognisable as the reference material - it needs to be significantly different to the reference material.
What counts as "significantly different" for you? If I copy the art style perfectly but only draw OCs (ex. 9 and 10), is this enough?

Might be worthwhile to have a look at what deviantart considers fanart to be - FAQ572 plus there's an interesting link on that FAQ to an article about it.
Image

User avatar
Sharm
Miko-Class Veteran
Posts: 558
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 4:39 pm
Projects: Twin Crowns, Weather Wizard
Contact:

Re: [Discussion] Where does "own content" start?

#15 Post by Sharm »

How does how much time you spend on it change anything? Since you're spending all that time recreating something that has already been done by someone else faster than you did all it proves is that you're horribly inefficient and uncreative. If you tried to pull that kind of logic in some mundane 9-5 job and had the gall to ask to be treated the same as the person who did it properly you'd get fired.

Tracing other's work has a place, as a learning tool. That's it. You don't get an award or props or special consideration or anything other than practice for doing it. And you shouldn't.
Works in Progress: Twin Crowns | Weather Wizard

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users